Sunday, 4 October 2015


This comment was interesting:
I believe the reason for the love of guns in America is spiritual/psychological, rooted in fear and lies. The people of the thirteen colonies were hyped up to believe that "tyranny" was imminent (hyped up by a wealthy upper class that stood to profit more by paying less taxes and not being limited by the Crown from settling behind the Appalachians). They bought the hype and believed that only bloodshed and the sacrifice of sons—even the apparent bulk of Christian ministers cast off "render unto Caesar" in favour of violence against the state and enemies. Then, the worst possible outcome for the American psyche: they *won*! Because they won, their faith and hearts clung to that which they believed gave them victory: 1) abandoning diplomacy & peace in favour of violence, 2) guns, &c. This solidified a deep spiritual and psychological attachment in the national psyche and kept alive by the education system as part of the national mythos. It has kept alive (as necessary) the often irrational fear of imminent tyranny. It has made "war" sacred and the sacrifices of soldiers beyond question. You can question any religious dogma, but as soon as you question whether soldiers' sacrifices were right or not, you've crossed the line.
H/T: Royal World.

I'm not keen on guns myself. My father owned an air rifle once upon a time but I have no especial fondness for guns, and would probably fear to hold one, let alone fire a bullet. Having said that, I do sometimes envy the protection Americans have under the "second amendment." Now, you can argue either way on this issue. You can say that the second amendment is centuries out of date and was relevant only to colonial times. Or you can say that it's too much of a sacrifice to depend entirely on the police for personal and domestic security. I remember only too well the "riots" we saw in England in the Summer of 2011, during which our police "service" substantially failed at their job and residents were compelled to take up their own defence. All too often nowadays we read stories of burglars suing home owners for accidents or injuries sustained whilst they were breaking the law; the tired line of "taking the law into our own hands," and so on. Who does the law belong to? Where does Justice come into it? All of this comes of ascribing to the State too much and too many of our own responsibilities, and by which we end up losing most of our liberties. Sex education in schools is a perfect example. At the other end of that spectrum we have "gun control," which is a cosy, pansy idea that precipitates our abject humiliation before the state and whatever callous, opportunist intruder who thinks it's worth his while to come into your home, steal your possessions and murder your family.

What did Faramir say again?
"War must be, while we defend our lives against a destroyer who would devour all; but I do not love the bright sword for its sharpness, nor the arrow for its swiftness, nor the warrior for his glory. I love only that which they defend: the city of the Men of NĂºmenor; and I would have her loved for her memory, her ancientry, her beauty, and her present wisdom. Not feared, save as men may fear the dignity of a man, old and wise."The Lord of the Rings, Book IV, Chapter V.


  1. "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

    A pretty unobjectionable statement for most, I should think. But I don't understand how anyone could possibly read it as supporting the notion that individuals have a right to possess automatic, military grade weapons, quite separately from their nation's armed forces. (The notion this would protect one against a government armed with drones, fighter jets, tanks, etc., is too ludicrous to bother refuting.)

  2. Frontier society requires firearms. Of course, we're no longer a frontier society, much less one made up almost exclusively of English colonists.

    Also, don't underestimate a guerilla army with semi-auto/auto rifles. The Vietnamese and Afghans were both outgunned.

    1. Anti-Gnostic, I lived in Detroit for a number of years, yes the United States is indeed, unfortunately, still very much a frontier society. Anyone who lives in that city without firearms is simply an idiot.

    2. It merely has to do with the demographics. Crime in white Appalachia is quite low, it's a refuge for whites fleeing the "diversity" of large Southern cities. Diversity is a Federally Protected Species, just like the "immigrants" pouring into Europe. Any white who lives in a large Southern city is a fool to leave home without a handgun...........I speak from experience. Shoot first and ask questions later!

  3. "[A]nd not being limited by the Crown from settling behind the Appalachians"; this is an interesting revision of historical reality, and now quite popular amongst many American leftist professors. The reality, Washington's investment west of the Appalachians aside, was that this area was heavily settled by the huge post-1720s immigration of Scots-Irish, who having been dispossessed of their land in Ireland had settled in large areas of the Appalachia Mountains and had relied upon their own guns, and not the British army, to protect themselves from the depredations of the former native inhabitants (who had always been few in numbers). They were not about to give their guns up to anyone, neither British nor the new United States, whom they defended against the English because of historical ethnic hatreds.

    A slight reading of the Englishman, Paul Johnson's book "A History of the American People" might be helpful for this fellow.