Home / Gun Ownership / How England’s Gun Owners Surrendered Their Guns and Liberties
Print Friendly and PDF

How England’s Gun Owners Surrendered Their Guns and Liberties

Written by Gary North on July 24, 2012

This video sends a warning.

Watch the first few minutes.

You see a huge crowd. The main issue was the ban on fox hunting, but the underlying concern was gun control.

Very briefly, without any publicity, for under three seconds, the great British actor Edward Fox appears. He was “the jackal” in The Day of the Jackal. He warns us: “Liberty is the word.” (Timeline: 15 seconds.)

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

19 thoughts on “How England’s Gun Owners Surrendered Their Guns and Liberties

  1. Americans gave up their God-expected responsibility to bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, and neighbors for the Second Amendment right to bear arms. The God-expected responsibility has been incrementally taken away from us since the Second Amendment was added as a part of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution. That's right, they did it to us again by framing the argument as one regarding a Second Amendment right rather than a Biblical responsibility.

    "As a gun owner and hunter, I am very concerned about my 'right' to keep and bear arms. However, as the Christian head of my home, I am much more concerned about my God-ordained responsibility to keep and bear arms for the protection of my family, home, and possessions. I am not a Second Amendment advocate. Americans who tout the Second Amendment as their authority to keep and bear arms may ultimately do more harm than good to their so-called right….

    "Disconcerting as many Americans may find the erosion of the Second Amendment guarantee, what is even more disturbing is that five people have the power to decide whether United States citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families, to what degree, and with what weapons. The Supreme Court has ruled [ District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S.] that Americans have the right to bear arms, but only until they say otherwise…. If you look to the Second Amendment for your authority to bear arms, that authority is contingent upon the fickle nature of nine fallible human beings."

    For more, see Chapter 12 "Amendment 2: Self-Defense: Constitutional or Biblical?" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on my name, go to our Online Book Page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 12.

    Also don't miss our Constitution Survey by which you can receive a free copy of the 85-page "Primer" of the the book mentioned above.

  2. sean murry says:

    Now i expect to pull our guns away from us using a excuse of the present shooting i dont trust the bastards.

  3. With So many Unarmed citizens and mostly the criminal element being armed, Is England the safest place to host the Olympics ? I know it is a little late, since we are days away from the opening ceremonies, but the Olympic Committee expects England's Government to keep the games secure. Worked well in Munich '72; Germans "protecting" Jews. England has a huge Muslim population which also makes for unsafe conditions. " World Governance " is not working well, already, even before the N.W.O. gets started. Just a preview of the horror to come. I will take American Liberty every time !

  4. William 1 says:

    Blair-you openly lied-sham on you!

  5. I've personally talked with a London police officer and he told me that crime was out of control in London mainly because, "We unarmed our citizens". I wonder if each local township tried to establish a law something like Kennesaw, Ga. I realize Nationally that it's against the law for a citizen to own a firearm but what if everyone who wanted a firearm was deuptized as a volunteer policeman. I realize that they would have to attend classes and pass a regirous background check but then a citizen would be able to give a criminal a warning "Stop in the name of the law!" before they shot them leathaly and legally.

  6. Max Penn says:

    Everyday the left work at grind away our freedom, and we are fed a dish of lies that we buy with out question that it's for our own safety. They did it with God and now they are doing it with guns. The population of America has been dumbed down for 50 years and now most do not understand their freedom is going away and that big brother will take care of them…

  7. lilbear68 says:

    lol the brits, they went to sleep in the 60-70's slipped into a coma in the 80's and now can be declared legally brain dead

  8. Sodbuster says:

    Now they have taken down the video claiming infringement. What a load of BUNK.

  9. That was quick.

    "English Warning To America…"
    This video is no longer available because the YouTube account associated with this video has been terminated due to multiple third-party notifications of copyright infringement from claimants including:
    Magic Bullet Records, LLC
    Highway 61 Entertainment
    Sorry about that.

  10. Greenbulldog says:

    Taking down the video gives it validity, me think.

  11. Sam Damon says:

    That is because the Left sees humans as slightly more evolved monkeys and not enlightened beings in God's image. They see themselves as the even higher evolved monkeys and thus must control the rest of us…

  12. Sam Damon says:

    The Brit police have guns…they are just afraid to use them. Especially on the Muslims.

  13. The video has been pulled by YouTube and is no longer available. It's what I get for waiting until the evening to read this e-mail.

  14. This video was pulled by the government because it flew directly into Obama's face and his U.N. Gun Control Agenda.

  15. wrong… the Second Ammendment merely names and recognises a God-given right to arms for the purpose of defense.. the self-defense you mention, as well as defense against ungodly and tyrannical government. It is very plain in the language of the Constitutioin that these rights are from our Creator, and can in no wise be taken away by men, particularly men in government.

  16. The are no such things as God-given rights to be found in the Bible, only God-expected responsibilities. Consequently, while you're technically correct that the Second Amendment did not provide the "right" to bear arms, the "right" it recognizes did not come from Yahweh.

    No one can take away a God-expected responsibility. On the other hand, the potential for abuse, control, and loss is inherent once something is recognized as only a right, which is exactly what's happened since the Second Amendment was ratified by the States.

    "The Puritan idea of rights and liberty was quite different from what the framers had in mind:

    'John Winthrop [first governor of Massachusetts Bay Colony] … reminded his fellow-citizens of Massachusetts that a doctrine of civil rights [as in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights] which looked to natural or sinful man as its source and guardian [as in the Preamble] was actually destructive of that very liberty which they were seeking to protect. True freedom can never be found in institutions which are under the direction of sinful men, but only in the redemption wrought for man by Jesus Christ. Christ, not man, is the sole source and guarantee of true liberty.' (C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) p. 19.)

    "R.J. Rushdoony pointed out the sophistry of governments based upon freedom:

    '….[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion. Tyranny and anarchy take over. Freedom of speech, press, and religion all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s law-order, in which alone is true liberty.' (Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 581.)

    "True liberty is found only in Yahweh’s perfect law of liberty:

    'But whoso looketh into the perfect law of liberty, and continueth therein, he being not a forgetful hearer, but a doer of the work, this man shall be blessed in his deed.' (James 1:25)…."

    For more, see Chapter 11 "Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on my name, go to our Online Book Page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 11.

  17. The video is gone from this site, but can be found at " http://libertycrier.com/u-s-constitution/english-… "

  18. Tionico. Absolutely correct my friend. The Constitution was a limiting document on the newly established federal government. The founders in no way commissioned a strong central government regulating the lives and the State governments of the people. The federal government has only those powers enumerated and assigned to it by it's creators, the States. Patriots must make it clear that we do not settle for muzzleloaders for duck hunting. That is not the purpose of the Second Amendment. Those natural and God-given rights are not granted to us by the Constitution, but acknowledged to be so, and predate our Federal government by centuries, going back to Rome and Greece. When Rome was a Republic, whose citizens were allowed to bear arms Rome was strong and in its heyday. When its population was reduced to being under absolutism as Rome morphed into an empire, the common citizens were disarmed and it all went downhill from there. Politicians don't like to hear this, but increasingly on the federal level, what parts of the Constitution do they want to hear about. Maintain our freedom, oppose all enemies, foreign and domestic.

  19. This reminds me of a story I heard about England during the second World War. Guns were always in short supply in England. Hunting and shooting sports were the pastime of the 1%ers (I sound like an occupier now) The British army was spread out all over the world and England was in danger of being invaded by the Nazis. the British people, brave and resolute as they are were preparing to meet the Huns on the beaches with a few shotguns, sporting rifles, pitchforks and cricket bats. The US had not yet geared up as the arsenal of democracy. A call went out to America and Canada asking citizens to check there closets and attics for any workable, even if obsolete firearms and to coordinate with the National Rifle Association, and the Canadian Rifle Association to ship them to England. Off they went, a motley collection of single shot .22s, shotguns etc. to defend the only nation left standing at that time in fighting the Nazis. Fortunately, the invasion never came, but the lesson should be clear.