a reply to: Stephen20
I am a lefty, done properly. I am neither rich nor powerful, I work hard for little reward, and suffer all the problems caused by capitalism without
really seeing overmuch of the benefit from it, in fact, see less and less year on year, under Conservative control of the country in which I live.
In short, I am not centre right dressed up as something else, as are many alleged lefties, ESPECIALLY in America (Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama to
name a pair).
I believe it is wrong to suggest either banning weapons in America, or banning Muslims, although for different reasons, and believe that you cannot
establish any kind of genuine equivalency between these things, save from to reference the fact that both these things represent a violation of one or
another aspect of the Constitution in some way, shape or form.
But they are significantly different situations, because one of these suggestions regards banning a thing, and things are no where near as important
as people, regardless of what the physical thing happens to be. Knives, guns, sporks, plastic packaging, marshmallows, these are mere things and have,
regardless of their importance relative to other objects, next to no importance when compared with human beings. Banning guns would be wrong because
it violates the constitution, and I would definitely not support that in the least, even in light of what has been happening in the states over the
last few years.
But banning actual people, just because of their religious beliefs, is a MUCH more serious violation, not just in terms of the constitution, with
respect to freedom of religious conviction, but also a complete abandonment of lessons learned about morality during the Second World War. Simply put,
any nation which had a hand in fighting that war, ending the reign of the Nazi party, should be fundamentally incapable of practicing anything even
remotely like a ban on travel from a country, with the intention of reducing the numbers of Muslims or any other religious sect, being able to gain
That being said, the right to defend oneself and possess the tools to do so is fundamental. You should have that right, and it should not be
abridged, modified, challenged or changed to reduce the effectiveness of what you may possess for that purpose. I am a lefty, and if you think that
means "Gun grabbing liberals blah blah blah, yak yak yak" then you are welcome to think that, and be fantastically wrong about it if you wish. But
realistically speaking, liberally minded persons have more to gain by being able to possess the necessary equipment for their defence and defence of
their country. To my mind, being left wing means a dedication to humanitarian principle, a love for ones people, a determination to see them protected
both from the government and criminal elements besides, both by way of ensuring the people have more power than the government, that they, not
corporations, own and control the government, but also in the immediate sense.
For example. I am a massive lefty. I live in a very Conservative area of the UK. When there is trouble in the street, it is rarely my Tory neighbours
rushing out to see what the fuss is. Muggins here is the one who steps up, every time, because in Britain, the Tory mindset does not often come with
any understanding of the responsibility a citizen has toward his fellows. They believe themselves to be islands unto themselves, that as long as they
are ok, the rest can go hang. They think that merely paying their taxes, mowing their lawns, and drinking enough gin to sink the Bismark is enough. I
do not. My home, you see, is not my abode, not my street, not my voting district. It begins at the Northern most tip of Scotland, and ends at the
Southern most point of England. Its all my home, and I believe that I have responsibilities toward every other person in my country, no matter who
they are, where they are from or what their religious beliefs or genetic or ethnic origins are. Those responsibilities include the same protective
instinct I show toward anyone else, the same determination that any method the Tory government uses to damage them is deflected and turned against the
government, the same determination that those who seek to threaten their lives are doomed to failure, in short, the desire to uphold my neighbours, my
countrymen, against anything that threatens their peace.
Now, I do not, as it stands, have the freedom necessary to carry a tool for the defence of my life, or anyone elses. But, a little while back, a
friend of mine who works at a warehousing firm which deals with boardgames and such, went to the States to organise a shipment of stock. After their
working days were done, he and his team would be taken by a company rep local to the area they were working in, to a bar for a few after work
beverages. While they were sat around their table, discussing this and that, this rep turns to my friend and asks:
"So...you have no real gun freedoms in the UK, right? How does that work when you get mugged, or someone breaks into your house?"
My friend grinned, looked the rep flat in the eye, and replied:
"Its pretty simple really...we just beat 'em to death."
And he is absolutely right. See, the mentality is there. We have the instinct to ensure that no one gets away with inflicting unacceptable
circumstances on one another, but we lack the tools, have to use our fists and feet to do work better done with a blade or a bullet. It does put the
victim at a disadvantage, and I do not believe that this is just or proper, but the law is what it is, and to violate it comes with prison terms so
severe that you would lose more freedom than you would gain, by carrying tools for personal defence here.
I, as a lefty from the UK, know this to be wrong. I cannot accept that it is correct that a little old lady on the street should not, if she be
capable of doing so, empty out the brain pan of the awful bastard that tries to rob her of her pension money. I cannot accept that it is correct, that
if confronted by a knife wielding mugger, I cannot draw steel and engage him without being at risk of prosecution over carriage of a blade for my
personal defence and defence of the community (I would not carry a gun personally, even if it were legal. Blades are quiet, never run out of
ammunition, and are harder to do collateral damage with). But since it is currently not lawful to carry items for personal and community defence, I
have to make do with my body itself as the only tool I have to perform this task with, but I still perform the task when necessary.
I would not wish that situation on my friends across the pond in America, in the least. I also wish that, having the freedom to carry these arms,
which, let us remember, was given in order that the government could not become too big for its boots, my friends across the pond would concentrate
more on establishing precisely what circumstances have to actually be in evidence in the US, before one has a responsibility to use ones second
amendment for what it is ACTUALLY for, aside from the mere defence of ones home from burglary, or ones life from common thieves and degenerate
murderers. Theres more to it than that, and properly defining what is and is not a reason to take ones government to task, and then acting on it,
might be wise.