The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post - My take on why gun-restriction works in Europe but not in the US

Webleymkv · August 21, 2011, 01:09 PM

Look at it from a historical perspective: The U.S. Constitution draws heavily on English Common Law. The founders of the U.S. government were not so much unhappy with the British parlimentary system (though they obviously did not view it as perfect since they set up a different system) but more because they felt they were not afforded the rights to which they were entitled as British citizens since they had no representation in Parliment and as such could be subjected to laws without recourse unlike British citizens living in England.

Both the U.S. and British systems of Government are set up the way they are in order to provide safeguards against tyranny. This has been the case dating back to the Magna Carta when British monarchs lost absolute power. By definition, a tyrant is one who exercises absolute power in a brutal or oppressive manner. There is no power more absolute than the power of life and death. The reason that U.S. citizens are guaranteed the right to arms is because the ability to defend one's own life is the final safeguard against tyranny. If the people no longer have the ability to defend their own lives, life being the most basic of all human rights, then liberty has completely failed and tyranny now reigns.

Now, when the word tyranny or tyrant is used, most people automatically think of a monarch or dictator like Nero, Hitler, Franco, Stalin, or Mao or perhaps an oppressive government such as the Taliban or Soviet Kremlin. While such figures and entities do certainly qualify as tyrannical, they are not alone in that definition. When a person is unable to defend his or her own life against a violent criminal, that criminal holds the power of life and death over that person and may exercise that power in a brutal of oppressive manner. By definition, a violent criminal becomes a tyrant under such circumstances.

Personally, I believe that freedom from tyranny, and thus the right to self-defense, transcends one's nation of citizenship and represents a fundamental and inalienable human right. By enacting such Draconian gun-control laws, I feel that the British Government has placed its citizens at an unacceptably high risk of being subjected to tyranny either through an oppressive government or, as recent events have shown, violent criminals.

August 21, 2011, 01:09 PM	#77
Webleymkv Senior Member Join Date: July 20, 2005 Location: Indiana Posts: 10,446	Look at it from a historical perspective: The U.S. Constitution draws heavily on English Common Law. The founders of the U.S. government were not so much unhappy with the British parlimentary system (though they obviously did not view it as perfect since they set up a different system) but more because they felt they were not afforded the rights to which they were entitled as British citizens since they had no representation in Parliment and as such could be subjected to laws without recourse unlike British citizens living in England. Both the U.S. and British systems of Government are set up the way they are in order to provide safeguards against tyranny. This has been the case dating back to the Magna Carta when British monarchs lost absolute power. By definition, a tyrant is one who exercises absolute power in a brutal or oppressive manner. There is no power more absolute than the power of life and death. The reason that U.S. citizens are guaranteed the right to arms is because the ability to defend one's own life is the final safeguard against tyranny. If the people no longer have the ability to defend their own lives, life being the most basic of all human rights, then liberty has completely failed and tyranny now reigns. Now, when the word tyranny or tyrant is used, most people automatically think of a monarch or dictator like Nero, Hitler, Franco, Stalin, or Mao or perhaps an oppressive government such as the Taliban or Soviet Kremlin. While such figures and entities do certainly qualify as tyrannical, they are not alone in that definition. When a person is unable to defend his or her own life against a violent criminal, that criminal holds the power of life and death over that person and may exercise that power in a brutal of oppressive manner. By definition, a violent criminal becomes a tyrant under such circumstances. Personally, I believe that freedom from tyranny, and thus the right to self-defense, transcends one's nation of citizenship and represents a fundamental and inalienable human right. By enacting such Draconian gun-control laws, I feel that the British Government has placed its citizens at an unacceptably high risk of being subjected to tyranny either through an oppressive government or, as recent events have shown, violent criminals.