Wed 17 Aug, 2011 06:08 pm
The Daily Caller
Britain’s Criminal Utopia
By Chris Cox
If you want to see what a disarmed society looks like,
look no further than England.
Thousands of angry, drunk, violent thugs running wild and stealing
anything they can carry. Shopkeepers and homeowners crippled with fear,
unable to defend their loved ones or their property. Innocent citizens
forced to watch helplessly while their life’s dreams — everything
they worked hard to build and acquire — are carried out the door,
or smashed to pieces, or burned to the ground.
Men, women and children forced to strip naked in the streets,
while packs of criminals laugh and ridicule them before making off
with their clothing.
The fact is, when British politicians violated their citizens’ God-given rights to self-defense,
they robbed them of their freedom and their dignity.
Sales of baseball bats are up over 5,000% on Amazon.co.uk.
This isn’t to mark the beginning of little league season.
These are desperate homeowners and shopkeepers purchasing
the best — and in reality, only — self-defense tool that the British
government will legally allow them to own…at least for now.
If past is prologue, this flood of baseball bats into London will spark cries
from government leaders for mandatory bat registration and a wave
of new laws on how, when, and under what circumstances British
citizens may carry or swing a bat. After all, this is exactly how
British citizens lost their gun rights.
First came mandatory gun licensing. Next came a wave of restrictions
on firearms ownership. Then came the outright gun bans.
It has been illegal to own a handgun in Britain for nearly 15 years.
As a result, Britain’s violent crime rate has soared. In fact, Britain
consistently clocks-in with the highest violent crime rate in all of Europe.
Regardless of last week’s riots, you are six times more likely to be mugged in London
than in New York. These are the inconvenient statistics that the gun-ban crowd
likes to sweep under the rug.
As if banning handguns didn’t send a strong enough message to criminals
that British citizens are ripe for the picking, the British government
went even further in 1999.
Recall the tragic story of Tony Martin, the British farmer who was
awakened one night to the sound of breaking glass and found two
burglars in his home. Martin had been robbed six times before.
This time, he went downstairs, retrieved a shotgun, and fired
at the intruders.
For this, Martin received life in prison (subsequently reduced to five years)
for killing one of the burglars, ten years (subsequently reduced to three years)
for wounding the other thug, and one additional year for possession
of an unregistered shotgun. The wounded burglar served just 18 months
of a three-year sentence and was given $5,000 in legal assistance
from Britain’s Legal Services Commission so he could sue Martin
for violating his civil rights.
The British government goes out of its way to embolden the criminal
element in society, and now British politicians look at last week’s
riots in utter amazement, confused as to how such a thing could happen.
As Britain’s Home Secretary recently said in an interview, “The way we police
in Britain is through consent of communities.”
All Americans should pay close attention to the riots in the Great Britain,
because this is the criminal utopia that gun-ban extremists at the
United Nations, and in our own White House, want to impose on us.
Ironically, the British government is one of the strongest proponents
of the latest U.N. scheme, a treaty to destroy our Second Amendment rights.
Evidently, British politicians think America and the rest of the world
should enjoy the same the criminal utopia that was on full display in London last week.
The U.N. and its anti-gun allies incessantly campaign for the United States
to be more like the rest of the world — especially disarmed [not so great any more] Great Britain.
As we watched the horror unfold in the UK, it has never been clearer:
The rest of the world should be more like America when it comes to freedom.
[All emfasis and red text has been added by David.]
It 'd be better if the English were willing to fight back in defense
of their dignity and of their property. Is that concept anti-socialist??