Like you we’d seen the trailers and were keen to learn more out how and why the season came to be, and what impact the channel hope that Disarming Britain will have on viewers…

I posted a rational comment yesterday, which hasn’t shown up. Since, another person’s post showed up (describing the horrors of paper-cut crime or something like that).

They do not exist for discourse. They exist for dicta.

Unfortunately for them, I have a weblog of my own, and replicated them there, replete with links and even more content. Oh, and lots more traffic. It must suck to not understand how the Internet works…

Look what happened with EU Constitution…

However, apart from respecting the quality of the video, I think the ideology behind it is completely wrong. Getting a gun will ALWAYS be child’s play for the very people you don’t want to have guns. And the answer they try to forget to the question above is, “if they didn’t have a gun, they would use a knife. Or a bat. Or a broken bottle. Or a…”

From the movie “Unforgiven”…

LITTLE BILL:
“I don’t deserve this… to die like this.”

WILLIAM MUNNY:
“Deserve’s got nothing to do with it.”

If enough people in either country would vote for freedom loving, common sense representives, we and they wouldn’t have these insane gun and self-defense policies

Too much work and it interferes with Dancing With the Stars.

I am guessing, but I would say no guns were shown because the drones who made the commercial didn’t want to “glamorize” guns.

You know if we don’t talk, show , or think about guns, they will go away and we can sing folk songs.

There is something unpleasantly surreal about an “anti-gun-violence” ad that never actually shows a gun.

OK, I yield the soapbox.

* No, never (68 votes)
* Yes, to protect yourself if attacked (417 votes)
* Yes, to be able to attack first (41 votes)

Seventy-seven percent believe they should be able to arm themselves.

All eight of the current comments, every single one, favors self-arming. The last one says explicitly, “I think the real question here is, why are the British people so willing to hand over their rights? It’s appalling, the gusto with which they declare their dislike of personal liberties.”

I must admit, though, the gusto seems not to be in the British people, but in the British politicians. Is there in fact still an England, ready to be reborn?

I was able to vote; I wonder how many voters in that poll are Brits? I wonder how long that poll will stay up as the votes get more and more lobsided?

How blind can these people be?

The current lead article on the blog front page asks, “How often do you actually need a knife nowadays?” And then they say it, just come right out and say it! “And let’s face it, with the number of stabbings going on in the current climate, even these laws don’t seem to be the answer.”

In their hearts, they know. They know, and they can not give up their error.

They are insane.

This is getting to be something of a mantra for me: “There’ll always be…an island off the French coast. England, however, is gone.”

Carl in Chicago, on June 18th, 2008 at 1:38 am Said: (Your comment is awaiting moderation)

Are these comments edited or censored?

In my view, this whole violence issue is a matter of personal choice and resolve. It seems that those who would perpetrate violence upon others are just too bold, as if they have nothing to loose. On the one hand, trying to counsel those individuals to give it up for a better way is a good thing, and a useful expenditure of time and effort. Yet on the other hand (there are always two hands) it seems that some of them simply won’t be reached by that method. It seems that balance is in order. One can embrace an anti-violence view with a justifiable self-defense view. But it is obvious to me that without a balance in the UK…without the legal means to allow defense of self and family, things are going to get worse, and worse. Sometimes dangerous people can be talked down. At other times, they need to be put down.

Is there room for self-defense in your approach?