Banned firearms in Britain? My arse! The English BILL OF RIGHTS 1689 .

Why I demand the right to carry a gun

by PETER HITCHENS, Mail on Sunday
March 23, 2003

We in Britain believe guns are so dangerous that only criminals should be allowed to have them. If you think this sounds unhinged, you are quite right. But, crazed as it is, such is the thinking behind this country’s current law on firearms.
It is almost impossible for a law-abiding person to obtain or keep a gun, thanks to severe laws diligently enforced by a stern police force. Yet criminals, who care nothing for laws, can and do easily obtain guns and ammunition – which they use with increasing frequency.
People in this country get emotional about guns but refuse to think about them. They run, squawking, from the subject as though it were perfectly obvious that the best response to anything that goes ‘bang’ is to ban it.
Those who own or keep guns are treated as only slightly less repellent than child molesters. In a perfect example of this silly frenzy, a Doncaster college lecturer was sacked last January for allowing a student to bring a toy plastic gun into class for use in a photography project.
If we ever did think about the subject, we should realise that something very strange indeed was going on and might begin to worry that we have gone seriously wrong.
Take a deep breath and consider what follows: I have never owned a gun and hope I never have to, but I want to have the right to do so if I wish – and the right to use a gun in defence of myself and my home. In fact, I do not think that I am a free citizen unless I have these rights.
This is not some wild idea imported from the badlands of North America. Until very recently, these were my rights under the ancient laws of England.
Moreover, we were all actually obliged by law to keep weapons at home so that we could help the authorities in the fight against crime.
The English Bill of Rights of 1689 – on which its American equivalent was modelled 100 years later – enshrines the right of subjects to have arms for their defence. Sir William Blackstone’s great summary of English law, the ‘Commentaries’ of 1765, also affirms the English people’s ‘right of having arms for their defence’.
Attempts to limit gun ownership in this country are very recent indeed. As late as 1909, when the police came under fire from a foreign anarchist gang in Tottenham, North London, they borrowed guns from the citizenry and appealed to members of the public to help them shoot back at the gang leaders.
And readers of the Sherlock Holmes stories, set around the same time, will have noticed that he and his assistant Dr Watson frequently go out on their expeditions armed with at least one revolver. The gun laws of Victorian England make modern-day Texas look effeminate.
Yet, though these stories are still widely read, almost nobody stops to wonder why what was legal in peaceful, well-ordered Edwardian London should be so illegal now. How and why is it that this freedom has been so abruptly and totally withdrawn?
One thing is for certain. It is not because tighter gun laws mean less gun crime. The more fiercely we have restricted private gun ownership in this country over the past century, the more armed crime there has been and the more the police have had to strap on holsters.
What should we learn from this? First, that criminals feel safer and more powerful when they know they are not likely to face any armed resistance.
That was certainly the view of Sammy ‘The Bull’ Gravano, an American Mafia turncoat who told Vanity Fair in 1999: ‘Gun control? It’s the best thing you can do for crooks and gangsters. I want you to have nothing. If I’m a bad guy, I’m always going to have a gun.’
His view has been backed up by American author John Lott, who found that many types of crime fell sharply in districts where law-abiding citizens were allowed to carry concealed weapons.
This was especially helpful to women, because the chance that they might have a gun in their handbags transformed them from being easy victims to tough propositions.
This practical form of sex equality is one of the things that does not compute in the world of the politically correct. Whoever heard of a British feminist with a gun? Can you imagine Germaine Greer keeping a revolver in her bedside table? Even so, what Lott says is undeniably true.
People who imagine that widespread gun ownership would turn quiet English towns into Dodge City tend to ignore the fact that guns in the hands of responsible people are a deterrent that is most unlikely to be used but which alters the behaviour of criminals.
One astonishing statistic shows just what a deterrent they can be. In Britain, roughly half of all burglaries take place while the householder is at home. In the United States, where the home-owner is likely to be armed, only one burglary in eight happens when there is someone at home. And in some states, which openly license residents to use deadly force against intruders, burglary is virtually unknown.
American law, based on English law, also takes the view that a man is entitled to defend himself in his own home. The principle of ‘defence of habitation’ gives the besieged citizen far more freedom to deal with an intruder than the vague and uncertain English requirement that only ‘ reasonable force’ should be used.
What seems reasonable in the small hours, in the dark, in the midst of a fear-soaked struggle, may not seem reasonable in the calm of a courtroom or in the offices of the Crown Prosecution Service, where the gravest danger is a shortage of digestive biscuits.
The main arguments for gun control do not, in fact, make sense. The mass hysteria about guns which followed the Dunblane school massacre made even less sense. It is quite clear that Thomas Hamilton, who murdered a teacher and 16 little children there in March 1996, should not have been allowed to own guns but cunningly exploited his ‘human rights’ to prevent the authorities acting against him.
After a long and careful investigation, the Cullen Report specifically did not recommend a general ban on handguns. There was no case for it. Yet that was what the politicians chose to do.
In recent years, chief constables and Home Secretaries have sought to limit gun ownership as never before. Most of these changes have happened since the Sixties, when liberal and politically correct ideas first infected the Home Office and the police. Much of the change has happened without debate and legislation.
The first proper Firearms Act of 1920 said that the police must issue firearms certificates on request, unless there was a good reason not to, and it assumed that people living in remote places who wanted a gun for self-defence would be permitted to keep one. Now, thanks to private, executive decisions by civil servants and police chiefs, that reasonable right has disappeared.
Yet if this policy was supposed to stem the rise in armed crime, it has completely failed. A former senior police officer, Colin Greenwood, has studied this in detail and says, devastatingly: ‘There is no statistical relationship between the numbers of firearms legally held in Britain and the use of firearms in homicide or robbery.’
This is no surprise. The sort of guns used in crime – sawn-off shotguns and revolvers – are all illegally obtained in the first place and cannot be controlled by law. Hardly any legally owned weapons are ever used in crimes. Armed robbery is almost never a first offence. Those who commit it have criminal records and are legally banned from owning weapons anyway.
What seems to be happening is that the Government is trying to get the monopoly of the use of force of all kinds. If a homeowner or a private citizen uses a gun, or any other weapon, to defend his property or himself, the normally feeble law suddenly changes character and smites him with an iron fist.
When, in August 1999, loner Tony Martin shot dead thief Fred Barras in the darkness and confusion of a burglary at his remote home, he was energetically prosecuted and convicted of murder. Though his conviction was later reduced to manslaughter and his sentence cut, he is still in prison and Barras’s accomplice, Brendan Fearon, is suing him for ‘loss of earnings’, an increasingly common pattern of behaviour among burglars injured during their crimes.
Mr Martin’s action was clumsy and rash but understandable and reasonable in the circumstances. But the same could be said of some police officers, who mistakenly shoot suspects in the heat and confusion of the moment. However, while 25 police officers have killed suspects in the past decade, only two have been prosecuted.
One was PC Christopher Sherwood, who in 1998 shot dead a naked and unarmed James Ashley in Hastings. PC Sherwood was cleared of murder after the judge ruled that the officer genuinely believed he was in danger and acted in self-defence.
If only such understanding had been shown to Tony Martin, he might never have been prosecuted and would certainly now be free. So why wasn’t it? It seems that the authorities fear that the English people, left to their own devices, will enforce the old conservative laws of England.
They will defend their lives and property against attack. They will assume that criminal acts are bad and that they are entitled to prevent and even punish them.
But the laws of England have been kidnapped and disembowelled by Leftwing liberals. The new code seeks to manage and understand and rehabilitate ‘offenders’. It thinks there are excuses for crime. And it disapproves of those who cling to the old rules.
Once, police and courts and people all agreed about what was right and what was wrong. In those days, the authorities were more than happy for us to defend ourselves as vigorously as we liked.
Now, while they have effectively abandoned us to the non-existent mercies of anybody who cares to break into our homes, they will punish us fiercely if we lift a finger to defend ourselves.
It is astonishing that this has been allowed to happen in a democracy. And unless governments act soon to start protecting us from crime with proper old-fashioned policing and punitive prisons, an increasingly desperate population will sooner or later start to act as Tony Martin did, in such numbers that there will not be enough courts to try them or jails to hold them. Who could benefit from that?
It is time that the liberal hijack of our criminal justice system was reversed – and reversed quickly for the sake of the peace and order of us all.

  • A Brief History Of Crime, by Peter Hitchens, is published by Atlantic at £16.99 on April 11. To order your signed copy at £13.99 plus £1.95 p&p, call the Review Bookstore on 0870 165 0870.


30 thoughts on “Banned firearms in Britain? My arse! The English BILL OF RIGHTS 1689 .

  1. Anonymous

    I used explosives on a daily basis over a period of 20years and had free access to 110 detonators daily. Never once was anyone even injured and the very thought of (putting some to one side)was unthinkable. why? because I was lawbiding and my responsibility was to the safety of others. That's the rational mind at work as opposed to the criminal mind.If I'd have posessed a weapon, the same mindset would have being dominant.Old Miner.

  2. Anonymous

    Sorry Johnny but arming the police is a terrible idea, as nationalists we should be really concerned about such an idea-there are many unstable,psychotic people in the police,evil individuals who would love to be able to have the power over life and death that a gun gives them.As nationalists we are constantly painted in the controlled media as "Nazis", monsters, and the lowest form of life-even more evil than murderers and paedophiles! Some of us may have been stopped for a routine traffic stop ( in my younger days i was stopped a few times late at night on my way home from girlfriends houses-wild oats etc!)what if the officer who stops you on that lonely road is one of the above mentioned evil bastards who decides he "doesnt like your face",what is to stop him from shooting you dead on the spot? All he would say to his superiours was "oh sorry sir i saw him reaching down, i thought he was reaching for a gun". And once the papers realised the dead man was a nationalists do you think the journalists would have any sympathy?, the "NAZI" and "RACIST THUG" labels would soon be all over the papers, suggesting of course that it was only a racist who was killed so why bother about him? How many times have we seen violent out of control psycho police walk away free after they have beaten/killed people? Remember the scum cop who was actually caught on the police station camera dragging and kicking the lady in her 60s who had allegedly commited some minor traffic offence? well he got away with it scot-free! and what about Jean Paul Demenzies who had his head blasted to pieces by scum police on the London tube? what crime had he commited? again the scum psycho murdering police walked away scot-free! I could go on but i hope you get my concerns. Do we really want to give an already dangerous police force the chance to kill and seriously in jure more innocent members of the public? I hope not.David Hayes sore toe

  3. Anonymous

    Cypriot savers cant get their money out of banks.It will only get worse and it will be the dominoe effect around Europe.The Talmudics are tightening the noose.No ifs or buts the economic Armageddon will be the spark forget everything else.Interesting talk by Bishop Williamson on Youtube.A true christian and patriot.Whiteboar

  4. Anonymous

    Romanian ‘granny’ loophole will allow Moldovan migrants to work in UKMORE than 300,000 Moldovans have begun the long march to enter Britain through the back door by exploiting a passport loophole.By: Katheryn Quinn and James Murray Published: Sun, March 17, 2013 0Comments Moldovans are heading to our shores to exploit a passport loophole The poverty-stricken former Soviet state is not a European Union member, but hundreds of thousands of Moldovans are acquiring EU passports by claiming dual nationality with their neighbours Romania.All a Moldovan needs to do to obtain an EU passport is produce documents saying they have a great grandparent of Romanian descent.I am training to be a nurse and I can earn more than 10 times what I earn in Moldova in the UK – that is my dream Anca NicolescuNow huge numbers of Moldovans are being given EU accreditation in preparation for a relaxation of regulations from January that will give 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians the right to work in the UK.Romania’s president Traian Basescu is fuelling the Moldovan exodus by giving his passport officials a target of processing 10,000 new applications each month. Already huge queues are a daily event at Romania’s passport office in the Moldovan capital Chisinau.Romania's president Traian Basecu is fuelling the Moldovan exodusRomania has also opened up two new consulates in the bulging Moldovan cities of Balti and Cahul to cope with the soaring demand.The high number of Moldovan migrants heading to Britain have not been factored in to rough estimates of how many Romanian and Bulgarians will arrive here next year.Many of those coming will have criminal records for serious offences as organised gangs control vast prostitution and human trafficking operations. Investigations by the Sunday Express show efforts by the UK Border Agency to stop killers and rapists from flooding into Britain are woefully inadequate.

  5. Anonymous

    Don't be taken-in by the heebie-hoo Hitchins – the wanker is through-and-through a leftie/commie paid by the Daily Wailing Mail to give that zionist shill arsewipe-rag a vaneer of English patriotism when – some time last year heebie Hitchins, in his DM column, moaned loud and long on how he wished he could avoid paying taxes like the banks and big corporations – on the stregnth of that article one of our Freemen group phoned and spoke direct with Hitchens, and told him that he (the Freeman) knew how to lawfully and legally arrange that he (Hitchens) would never pay income taxes again – instead of jumping at the offer, Hitchins gasped as if he'd uncontrollably just shit his pants in fright – which he probably did – gave a sickly chuckle and said "err – no thanks, good-bye" then put the phone down – unknown to Hitchens was we'd put the phone on loudspeaker so all of us in the room could hear Hitchins – the heebie-hoo bastard is 100% mouth and fuck-all else, especially in the balls and backbone department.Fly On The Wall

  6. Anonymous

    Official Red Cross Records Show Holocaust Was a Fraud?NOTE: I am not a holocaust denier or an anti-semite I know this is a taboo topic but given the picture above and i’ve seen others, I feel the need to post it here on Beforeitsnews. I love a good conspiray and that is what this is. All I ask is that you keep as open a mind with this as you do with 9/11 or JFK. )No Evidence Of Genocide

  7. Anonymous

    @ 3:35 "Being White in PhillyWhites, race, class, and the things that never get said." – same there in Philly as in England, then – refusal of accepting overwhelming evidence gathered throughout the world by government agencies, Court records, justice agencies, police and crime departments, anthropologists and mainstreet media daily news reports that whereever the black race migrate to they ALWAYS have a deadly niggertive affect, especially and more so in White Race countries, by their 400,000-year old arrested intellectal developement of their jungle instincts to pillage, rob rape and murder without thinking of consequences.Fly On The Wall

  8. Anonymous

    01:22 "Official Red Cross Records Show Holocaust Was a Fraud?"~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Better than the official Red Cross records are the actual original uncensored official German Auschwitz prison records the Russians kept secret for over 50 years, which they discovered when they over-ran Auschwitz and liberated the prisoners – said German records listed every prisoner who entered Auschwitz from day one of its opening for customers, till a few week before the Russians arrived – those records confirm that less than 240,000 prisoners of all nationalities died in Auschwitz – and their deaths were mainly due to diseases such as typhoid, dysentry, tuberculosis, pneumonia, etc caused by malnutrition and starvation – and that happened near the end of the war, when esential supplies of food, clothing and medicine were scarce for everyone in Germany including German prison gaurds man of who themselves succumbed to the same diseases – gas ovens at Auschwitz is a fraudulent myth created long after the war – in their highly detailed exhaustive memoirs of WW2, neither Churchill or Eisenhower wrote a word on gas-chambers in German concentration camps – and both Churchill and Eisenhower were jews through immediate direct jew parentage – another embarrassing fact about Auschwitz modern-day (read: brainwashed deadbeats) historians refuse reporting is, hundreds of captured British soldiers were held as POWs in Auschwitz throughout WW2 – source the correct section in Public Records Office and you'll find dozens of b&w photos of British POWs in Auschwitz – some of the photos are of British POWs playing football and posing in football team groups etc – they certainly weren't fat, but neither were they stick-thin ands starving – conditions only developing as the war was ending – as for 40,000 new German WW2 now coming to light, I'm stunned the figure is that low for a new heebie-hoo fairytale trying to out-bollocks the heebies' hilarously overblown halodabolhoax – almost forgot mentioning – when the heebies got wind the Russians and the Red Cross dad evidence that the Halodabolhoax was a load of bollocks, they quitely and without fanfair crept into their Halodabolhoax museum and removed a granite plaque claiming 4,000,000 hebies were gassed in Auschwitz, and replaced it with a granite plaque claiming 1,500,000 hebies were gassed in Auschwitz – for the sake of acedemic argument lets suppose 6,000,000 were killed in German POW work camps (for that is what they were) that the heebies are still admently and vociferously claiming 6,000,000 of their fellow heebies were killed/gassed during WW2, begs the obvious question: when one subtracts 1,500,000 from 6,000,000 how does 6,000,000 remain 6,000,000 instead of 4,500,000? – Oh, yeah, nearly forgot – I'm discussing classic heebie fairytales – and hereby hangs an unbeleivable tale (8 Fly On The Wall – Professor Emeritus of Ancient & Modern Heebieology

  9. Anonymous

    Whitetboar, greetings – though the heebies have a controlling death grip on most of the world's mainstream media, especially and moreso in Britain, inevitably the truth will out – the first thing a true patriotic non-corporate English goveernment should do is open ALL the secret files held in the securest section of the Public records office – the first files that should be opened and made public are those of heebie-hoo Lizzie Sax-Gotha-Coberg and the rest of her parasitic cuckoo flock lining-up and waiting their turn for ensconcing their usurping arses on the English throne.Regards,Fly On The WallPS. apologies, all, for minor mistakes and ommitted words caused by speed-typing to fire-off comments before my IPS pulled the plug on me yet again.

  10. Anonymous

    There is a lot being posted about Greville Janner on the David Icke forum and this blog is being quoted. The Jimmy Savile outed as PAEDO Oct 3rd thread.Janner will rue the day he showed that party of school children around parliament.

  11. Anonymous

    Indeed its about time Hadley Esq stopped acting like a lost fart in a thunder storm and got his act together, and put some up dates on here its over 3,days since his last attempt its lazy and Outrageous on his part.

  12. Anonymous

    On the 10th anniversary of the illegal invasion and total destruction of Iraq, some of the main criminal cunts responsible for said invasion and destruction are now slithering out from their middens and cesspits, and elbowing each other out of their way in the frantic race to get in front of a TV News camera for airing their exuses and justifying and distancing themselves from their own high crimes against humanity, are the war criminals who: 1) dragged Britain into the blatantly illegal heebie-hoo proxy war with Iraq, a sovereign country that never invaded nor adeclared war on Britain and: 2) are 100% responsible for the needless deaths of hundreds of our troops in Iraq, and; 3) are 100% responsible for the murder of over one-million innocent Iraqi men, women and children, through illigal wars and unlawful sanctions of vital supplies such as medicines, life-saving medical equipment and food stuffs – among said self-justifying criminal cunts are war-mongers covert bumboy Blair, heebie-hoo Strawm, and John '2-inch weener' Prescott – and not to be outdone by his centre-staging war-mongering war criminal chums' telly appeances, is Baron Robin 'the braindead' Butler of Brockwell, the lanky 'useful cunt' bumboy Blair appointed as a "safe pair of hands" for vigorously wielding a gigantic white-washing brush called the 'Butler Inquiry' into secret agency intelligence (an extreme contradiction in terms, if evere there were one) responsible for the 2003 illegal military invasion of Iraq – though there wasn't a scrap of credible supporting evidence of Saddam's government seeking uranium in Africa, Blair's useful whitewashing cunt wrote in his inquiry report that Saddam's government was seeking uranium in Africa appeared "well-founded" – proving the Fly-on-the-Wallism: "Employ 10th-rate piss-poor butlers and you'll get 10th-rate pisspoor results."A well researched, highly detailed book of the wholesale criminal political maneuverings and litany of intel cock-ups used for justifying and causing the 2003 illegal invasion of Iraq is:FIASCO – by Thomas E. RicksISBN: 978-0-141-02850-7I also note many of the journalist and reporter who vigorously banged the war drums for the criminal invasion of Iraq, are now quitely shitting pants and blurting anti-Iraq war rhetoric – no doubt with the fate of Hitler's Foreign Minister, Ulrich Friedrich Wilhelm Joachim von Ribbentrop, in mind – Ribbentrop never killed anyone, yet was unjustly hanged after being tried in the heebie-hoo choreographed post-war stage-managed Neurenburg kangaroo court show-trials.Fly On The Wall

  13. Anonymous

    @ 20:02: "Senate Democrats to drop assault weapon ban from gun bill."~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Knew they would – the Americans have the 1689 English Bill of Right to thank for that result, because the American Bill of Rights is a reworked version of the 1689 EBORs – their Second Ammenment (Right of Freemen bearing arms for self-defense etc,) is a rejigged version of Article 7 of the 1689 EBORs.Fly On The Wall

  14. GriffinWatch

    Fly."Don't be taken-in by the heebie-hoo Hitchins – the wanker is through-and-through a leftie/commie paid by the Daily Wailing Mail to give that zionist shill arsewipe-rag a vaneer of English patriotism when – some time last year heebie Hitchins, in his DM column, moaned loud and long on how he wished he could avoid paying taxes like the banks and big corporations – on the stregnth of that article one of our Freemen group phoned and spoke direct with Hitchens, and told him that he (the Freeman) knew how to lawfully and legally arrange that he (Hitchens) would never pay income taxes again – instead of jumping at the offer, Hitchins gasped as if he'd uncontrollably just shit his pants in fright – which he probably did – gave a sickly chuckle and said "err – no thanks, good-bye" then put the phone down – unknown to Hitchens was we'd put the phone on loudspeaker so all of us in the room could hear Hitchins – the heebie-hoo bastard is 100% mouth and fuck-all else, especially in the balls and backbone department."It was a relevant and topical article. It is a helpful article.Fair play to P.H.Sean

  15. Anonymous

    Greek PM promises Jewish leaders a law against Holocaust denial

  16. Anonymous

    Gri££in Watch, greetings – I wasn't critiqueing heebie Hitchen's article, for it's an excellent piece by him – it's his blatant hypocrisy I totally condemn – the same Freeman who spoke to Hitchens on the matter of lawfully avoiding all taxes on all eerned and unearned income, also tipped-off Hitchens that while closet bumboy Blair made it nigh impossible for concerned caring parents to have their babies vacinated for measles, mumps and rubellato with seperate vacination shots over a safe period of time, and was singing the praises of the deadly toxic MMR vacine and forcing on the British public, the bullet-proof-vest-wearing big pharma shill wanker steadfastly refused to reveal if baby Leo Blair had the single MMR jab – with good reason he kept his lying mouth shut for once – one of our sources photograhed sensitive medical documents recording that Drott-bucket cakehole Cherie Blair had been in contact with Clinic 2000, london, to have her kiddie Leo vacinated with three seperate vacination shots for measles, mumps and rubella – that's why the Daily Mail mounted a relentless three-month campaign to try forcing manic-eyed war criminal Blair into revealing what kind of vacination jabs Leo had – the battle of wills between the Daily Mailing Mail and Blair ended in a mexican stand-off – MI5 doesn't have the monopoly on inside sources in high places – by the way, Hitchen nor anyone else working for the Daily Mail were shown the photos of the documents.Regards,Fly On The Wall


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s