Tag » NATIONAL REVIEW
THANK GUN CONTROL FOR UK CRIME
The riots continue in the UK where, if you’re a criminal, you can break into someone’s home without fear of someone putting a bullet hole in you.
What’s happened in the UK since its massive gun control in 1986 should shut up every gun control freak in America forever, but it won’t.
*************************************************************************
Britain’s licensing of gun owners and the registration of their firearms made it easy for the government to take guns from law-abiding citizens after a mass-murderer in Hungerford killed 16 people in 1987.
Within the next decade, British politicians criminalized possession of most handguns — the final deadline for turning them in was Feb. 27, 1998. (This is something liberals would like to do in the U.S., too.) Yet, few have subsequently pointed to the victims of this anti-freedom gun confiscation.
The English papers haven’t interviewed victims of rape and other crimes and asked what they might have done if they had the ability to defend themselves from criminals.
Curbing violence, naturally, was the goal English politicians said they’d attain in return for law-abiding citizens’ handing over this basic human liberty; however, after the U.K. disarmed its population, England attained the highest burglary rate and one of the highest rates for violent crimes of the industrialized nations, according to the International Crime Victims Survey carried out by the Dutch Ministry of Justice in 2000. As the Guardian put it on Feb. 23, 2001, the study “shows England and Wales as the top of the world league with Australia as the countries where you are most likely to become a victim of crime.” More recently, on July 3, 2009, England’s newspaper theDaily Mail reported that “Britain’s violent crime record is worse than any other country in the European Union, it has been revealed. Official crime figures show the U.K. also has a worse rate for all types of violence than the U.S. and even South Africa.”
Meanwhile, British politicians have reacted to the irrefutable failure of their gun-control schemes by calling for more of the same. They’ve even recently banned starter pistols.
Given that they’ve disarmed the law-abiding public and obviously can’t disarm the criminals, what else can they do in this time of violence?
What some in the government would like to do can be chillingly found in a July 2002 English government “white paper” titled “Justice for All.”
This paper argued that the government needs to: allow the use of hearsay evidence in trials; remove the double-jeopardy rule for serious cases, including cases that have already been resolved under the current system; and eliminate the right to trial by jury in many cases.
************************************************************************
The UK could use a few of our “gun nuts.”
ROMNEY’S NOT THE ANSWER
Mitt Romney is the front runner for the Republican nomination.
“American conservatives’ problem with Romneycare is the same as with Obamacare — that, if the government (whether state or federal) can compel you to make arrangements for the care of your body parts that meet the approval of state commissars, then the Constitution is dead. And Americans might as well shred the thing and scatter it as confetti over Prince William and his lovely bride, along with an accompanying note saying, “Come back. It was all a ghastly mistake.” For if conceding jurisdiction over your lungs and kidneys and bladder does not make you a subject rather than a citizen, what does?”
He points out that, despite what Romney has been saying in order to sell himself as a conservative, with him it would be more of the same.
And it should be pretty obvious to everybody that we can’t have more of the same from either party — especially from Obama.
People laugh at Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachman — especially Palin.
But, if you listen to what Palin says about government and dismiss the Tina Fey caricature and her interpretation of Paul Revere’s ride, she makes more sense than all of the “smart” people in the room.
(How are all those “smart” people in Washington — from both parties – working out for you now?)
She and Bachman are “extremists” when it comes to government spending.
Now that the USA’s credit rating is in the shitter, maybe it’s time for a little extremism in the cause of sanity.
The Republicans, as Steyn points out, tend to nominate the guy whose turn it is and it’s Romney’s turn. They had better come up with somebody better, because he’s only slightly better than Obama and that won’t be enough to fix the problem.
The scariest thing of all is that there are people out there who think the solution is to tax the millionaires and borrow more money. One of them is living in the White House.
“If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Romneycare is not part of the solution; it embodies the problem. If Mitt Romney cannot recognize that, it’s unlikely that he’s the guy to pull American politics back into a passing acquaintance with reality. To put it in Obama terms, America is a moat, and it’s filled with government spendaholics. You could toss a poor alligator in there, but they’d pick him clean in seconds, and leave what was left for Nancy Pelosi’s shoes.”
OBAMA AND CLASS WARFARE DEFINED
This is the best description I’ve ever read of what Obama, liberals and class warfare are all about.
My favorite excerpt:
“The agenda of the poorer and lower-middle classes is championed mostly by an affluent elite located on the two coasts, who find power and influence in representing “the people,” and are themselves either affluent enough, or enjoy enough top government salaries and subsidies, to be largely exempt from any hardship that would result from their own advocacy of much higher taxes and larger government expenditures.”
That’s one sentence that explains why I want to throw up when I hear people like Obama and Bill Clinton try to show how fair minded they are when they point to themselves as capable of paying more taxes.
SOFT BIGOTRY OF LOW EXPECTATIONS
I have a chapter in my book, “Just Watch The Game” called “The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations.”
In it, I tell a story about hearing a Pitt basketball player saying , “Yes we is,” in a TV interview and I made the point that, too often, colleges allow black athletes to speak incorrectly either out of a fear of being called racist or because of lowered expectations for blacks, which, in itself is a sign of bigotry.
It’s known as “soft” bigotry but, in a lot of ways, I think it’s a lot worse than blatant racism, which is more easily detected.
Today I ran across a columnist who agrees with me. Here’s Dennis Prager:
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/268966/low-expectations-demean-black-citizens-dennis-prager
|
JUNE 7, 2011 12:00 A.M. Low Expectations Demean Black Citizens While dining out last week, I periodically looked up at one of the television monitors to see the score of the first game of the NBA finals. As there was no sound on, the monitor was in caption mode: One could read rather than hear the words spoken. At the conclusion of the game, an announcer was interviewing a member of the victorious Miami Heat. I saw from the captions the player saying the words “they isn’t.” Closed captions display the words spoken. They don’t correct for poor grammar. All I could think was: How can a grown man in America today say “they isn’t” rather than “they aren’t”? |