From: "pa49", [EMAIL PROTECTED]
There seems to be an almost self-destruct air about the debate regarding who
should and who should not be "allowed" firearms. Why would anyone want to
remove an individuals right to defend him or herself in the appropriate
manner? The appropriate manner can only be justified by the applying
circumstances so the use of a firearm would be justified in certain
circumstances and the use of your fists unjustified in others. Having the
appropriate personal method of defence was debated long and hard before our
Bill of Rights was written in the 15th century. The men involved seem to
have had a clearer view than we ("modern" society) have of just what this
means. They were "uneasy" about armed Catholics, but accepted that even they
had the right to defend themselves and so were allowed firearms for their
defense. Spurious laws (usually enacted as Game Laws) were not heavily
applied and when they were it was the tools of the poachers trade that were
confiscated, leaving alone any wrong doers defensive firearm. Stockpiling
(unless you were nobility and showed allegiance to the crown) was not an
acceptable practice as the crown felt uneasy about any perceived threat.
Defensive firearms were not worthy of being considered a threat.
If this was how human life and the right to it's defence was considered in
those times, what has happened in the intervening years that leads to the
view that life and it's defence is now worth less?
Are the contemporary restrictions a thinly veiled attempt to curtail a
perceived threat to an incumbent Government (the threat to overthrow the
Monarch has long receded) and does this point to the real reason why an
applicant needs to had good reason to obtain an FAC and thus have his or her
character acknowledged as supposedly good enough to own and use a firearm
without danger to anyone.
We are all surely potentially dangerous with or without firearms and the
ownership of the same does not make us any different in that respect. Should
the test not be all are fit unless they show/prove otherwise? This would not
be a charter for disaster as some would have us believe but would rather
generate, in us all, a healthy respect and regard for what is after all the
most important single thing that we all possess, namely our lives. This is a
respect that is singularly lacking from recent political thinking on both
sides of the fence, but is crystallized in the current manic and desperate
attempts to curb armed criminal activity by the misdirected and sometimes
downright illegal imposition of restrictions on legitimate firearms owners.
Neil Saint
(N.B. The term illegal is used meaning unlawful when referring to a system,
which is designed to administer justice for all and is clearly manipulated
by the unjust use (abuse?) of power.)
(A full background to the above historical references and further
fascinating information can be found in Joyce Lee MalcolmÆs book ôTo Keep
and Bear Arms æThe Origins of an Anglo-American RightÆö)
Cybershooters website: http://www.cybershooters.org
List admin: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
___________________________________________________________
T O P I C A http://www.topica.com/t/17
Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics
