"Pity the poor opponents of the right to keep and bear arms! They must distrust just everybody except criminals and except the tyrant to whom they concede the armed monopoly of their protection."
by:
Pierre Lemieux
Canadian journalist
Source:
LIBERTY Magazine Nov. '97
Rating:
Categories:
 
Bookmark and Share  
Reader comments about this quote:
A stupid lie, hoping to give a sound bite to leftist despots.
 -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Perfect!
     -- J Allen, Arlington, Va     
  •  
    Pierre is an acquaintance and respected journalist. He is presently raising a Constutional challenge to the Canadian law requiring him (all of us) to list ex wives and girlfriends as part of a gun license application. He says simply that "My love life is none of their business". For this they revoked his license and registration certificates and demanded he hand over his firearms. He refused and now risks jail. Go, Pierre!
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    I live in the UK where we don't have the need to bear arms - and I'm very grateful for that. We trust each other and have *less* fear in our lives. Also, I guess Msr Lemieux must mean that we "~ ACCept the tyrant ~"
     -- Tog, Caersws, UK     
  •  
    Tog ,bully for you. Does your reply mean that you have no crime in the UK. We here in the colonies hear otherwise. If a burgler with a gun or knife breaks into your home do you ask him nicely if he will wait a minute while you call a Bobby. Over here we would shoot the thug, too bad you can't.
     -- jim k, Austin,Tx     
  •  
    I guess in the UK if you find someone raping your wife or daughter...you just make them a nice cup of tea. They might be thirsty when they're finished after all... What happened to the English? Was there a mass neutering?
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    All the quotes today like all the crap about the 2d amendment is a false argument or dodge to keep people from voting for really important issues concerning their very lives. No politician to my knowledge has ever run on a campaign to take away guns or the 2d Amendment. Bill Clinton and the Brady Bill Bunch campaigned and passed legislation to get Street Sweepers (like a shot gun Gatling Gun) off of the street and to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons. Jim K living as close to Mexico as you do you should be ashamed of yourself if you do not know what a proliferation of arms can accomplish, Tog has a point. Go spend a weekend in El Paso's neighbor city across the Rio Grande. They got all of their weapons from the US. As for me I just came from a weekend camping in a National Forest where bear and other desperados may hang out, I kept two guns handy.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  •  
    Now Waff, I warned you about sobering up before writing on this site. The gibberish above makes my point.
     -- jim k, Austin,Tx     
  •  
    J Carlton, I think you may be right about that English mass neutering thing. It sure explains a lot about dear old England.
     -- jim k, Austin,Tx     
  •  
    I think the UK comment demonstrates a greater fear for the criminals in government than the criminals out of government. I also understand that in the ethnically non-Anglo/Saxon segments of the UK, there is a greater fear of the criminals outside of government than the criminals inside government when it concerns armed threats or violence. Waffler, how is the crap about the 2d amendment a false argument to dodge and keep people from voting for really important issues concerning their very lives?
     -- Mike, Norwalk     
  •  
    Lest we forget that citizens of the UK are SUBJECTS to their Queen, having no rights other than what the Crown grants, living at the pleasure of the Crown and serving the whims of the Crown. It is the King's land, the King's roads, the King's deer, and the King's people, so it is the job of the King to keep his subjects as he sees fit. THAT is a fundamental difference between America and England. But the British people USED to value their hard-fought rights against the Crown. "And, lastly, to vindicate these rights, when actually violated and attacked, the subjects of England are entitled, in the first place, to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law; next to the right of petitioning the king and parliament for redress of grievances; and, lastly, to the right of having and using arms for self preservation and defense." - Sir William Blackstone (1723-1780) Tog does not speak for all Brits, that is for sure.
     -- E Archer, NYC     
  •  
    England has a long history of offending the rights of its people. During the time of William Wallace, it was against the law for anyone in Scotland to own weapons of any kind. That, along with the thousands of troops patrolling the streets, shows not only that the King distrusted his Scotish subjects, but that he feared them as well. Wallace's rebellion reveals that government is not capable of completely removing all arms from the people and that the people can use arms to overthrow an oppressive government.
     -- Publius, USA     
  •  
    If I remember correctly, there was time when the crime was so low in the UK that the Bobbies didn't even carry a gun or pistol. The only weapon they had was a billie club. When guns were banned and confiscated the crime rate Soared!! From the news available 24/7 from the UK, it seems the Bobbies are wearing riot gear and are fully armed. Hmmm. Doesn't sound much like the peaceable kingdom.
     -- Carol, Georgia     
  •  
    No kingdom is completely peaceful and no land can boast a crime rate of zero. No matter how moderate a society is, it cannot avoid the evil agendas of evil people. A law will not disarm these evil people for they care not what the law says. An anti-gun law will succeed only in disarming the law abiding citizens; leaving them completely defenseless against and in the mercy of criminals and tyrants.
     -- Publius, USA     
  •  
    The early American colonists were also peace loving, violence abhoring pilgrims. They eschewed guns and violence. We have anti gun laws for international relations, ever heard of nuclear disarmament, or chemicla warfare disarmament. Mustard gas was "outlawed" long ago. So obviously reasonable people can agree and compromise on common sense. Any reasonable folk ever come on to this site?
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  •  
    Carol you are really missing the historical fact that the Bobbies did not need guns because the criminals did not have guns. You have stumbled upon the fact about violence breeds violence and the size and the power of the weapons needed escalate. Get it, get it? When cops came up with bullet proof vests, the bullet industry came up with and sells "Cop killer bullets". Freedom ain't it great!.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  •  
    And Waffler twists the truth and propogates myths once again. At least he's consistent.
     -- J Carlton, Calgary     
  •  
    Waffler, you say that the American colonists eschewed guns. A not so difficult research into the history of the American colonists and the revolution reveals the absurdity and ignorance of this statement. Britain passed the stamp act so the colonists sent letters petitioning to the king for repeal. Britain passed more oppressive taxes and still the colonies just sent letters listing their greivances. Then Britain laid Boston under seige, forced the people to house soldiers and wouldn't allow any imports or exports into or out of the city, thus starving it and the citizens of. Even this atrocity did not lead to a violent rebellion; the Congress simply sent an olive branch petition to Britain that explained their loyalty to the king and pleaded for mercy. But then, Britain, in order to gain greater control over its colonial subjects, attempted to disarm the colonists. That was the last straw. When the people of Lexington and Concord learned the British army was coming to disarm them, they fired THE SHOT HEARD AROUND THE WORLD. Instead of peacefully submitting to the British Crown and giving up their arms, they used them to protect their life, liberty, and property. The colonists loved their guns because these arms were vital in the effort to throw off the yoke of an oppressive and overbearing government and establish a land of liberty and justice. If they eschewed guns as you say, you would be British. "Those who hammer their guns into plows, will plow for those who did not." Thomas Jefferson "Those who trade liberty for security have neither." Ben Franklin "To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason "Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." George Washington "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." Richard Henry Lee "The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." Alexander Hamilton Do these guys really sound like they eschewed arms?
     -- Publius, USA     
  •  
    And another thing Waffler, your reply to Carol shows your belief that an anti-gun law will magically remove guns from the hands of criminals. This is an equally absurd statement. Drugs are against law but the government is having a hell of a time getting them off the streets. Only peaceful and law-abiding citizens obey the law. Therefore, they are the only ones that would give up their guns simply because a law says to. That would render them completely defenseless from the still armed criminal. The best way to cut down on violence, on murder, rape, robbery, etc. is for everyone to be armed and trained how to use those arms. Rarely will one be attacked, if he is knowingly armed and when he is attacked, he has the ability to defend.
     -- Publius, USA     
  •  
    Publius the Massachusetts Pilgrims and the Pennsylvanina Quakers were very pacifist. I agree with what you say about Lexington and Concord, but remember the arms or most of them were in the armory and that is what the Colonists were trying to protect. The arms or most of them were not in the peoples homes. If you have never heard of the concept of "arms race" I cannot imagine where you have been.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  •  
    Waffler, The Sons of Liberty was an organization of normal citizens that stockpiled arms in barns and many other secret locations throughout their neighborhoods, these guns were in the possession of common men, not armories. Many of the Pennsylvania Quakers did remain nuetral throughout the war. For that, we owe them no debt of gratitude for the liberty we take for granted. However, a large portion of Quakers broke off and formed their own group known as the Fighting Quakers. They served in the Continental Congress and TOOK UP ARMS against the British. For that, they have earned the respected title of Patriots. If the "arms race" you are refering to is the international effort to remove nuclear weapons from most countries throughout the world, than yes I have heard of it. This arms race is spearheaded by the U.S. government for its own national defense; so that other nations cannot attack us and so America remains the supreme power of the Earth. If we allow the Federal Government to do the same within our borders to the American People, the government will similarly become the supreme uncontested power of our nation. In a land of liberty, that power should and must always belong to the People, not the government. The last resort to defend our rights against an oppressive and overbearing totalitarian government is a revolution. When the civil road to liberty is cut off, it must be taken by the sword. If we were to be stripped of our right to bear arms, this ultimate alternative would no longer exist. When the government becomes destructive of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, We the People would no longer have the ability to overthrow it and once again establish justice and secure the blessings of liberty.
     -- Publius, USA     
  •  
    What you forget Publius is WE are the governmnet. The fact of the seesaw nature of Washington politics is proof positive that WE are in charge and that we are fickle and change our minds every two years or so. I really know of no one who is against the right to own and bear arms. Many folk who have an equal right not to own a bear arms and see no need to do so have a certain jaundiced eye or fear towards those whose homes are veritable arsenals. This election like all of our elections is the proof that arms are not and never will be the source of power in this our country. It is the mind and the pen dear Publius that shall run things in this our country. Not guns, NEVER!
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  •  
    Waffler, I admire your faith in the strength of our republic and your belief that there will always be a peaceful resolve. I pray that you are indeed correct and the pen always remains mightier than the sword. But the truth is, our republic is not immortal. The older our government gets, the farther it moves from the original republic founded by our forefathers. Consider a candidate for political office. He is charismatic, has integrity, says all the right things, makes all the right promises, and fills the people with hopes and dreams. Of course, he strolls to office with an overwhelming majority. Then, while in office, he forgets his promises, loses his integrity, does all the wrong things, betrays the trust of the people, and shatters their hopes and dreams; all to further his own ambition. Now magnify that to include many candidates and multiply it to include many years. The product is not the republic controlled by the mind and pen of the people, its despotism run by the will of self-ambitious individuals. Also, two major parties have a complete, unrivaled monopoly of our entire political system. They have been locked in battle for decades. If one was to finally enjoy a complete victory and end the life of the other, our republic would be managed and power would be held by a single party and could resemble that of Germany in the 1930s and 40s. However unlikely this is, it must be considered because the life and liberty of ourselves and our children rely on the integrity and purity of the republic. Throughout history every elected government has ended in despotism. It happened to the Greeks, it happened to the Romans, and we cannot overlook the possibility of it happening to us and that the probablity of its occurance increases with time. We must use our knowledge of the past to prepare for the future. I will prepare with the Bible and the gun. And I will also teach my children the Truths of The Book and train them in the operation of the gun. If the tragedy of the fall of our republic does occur, I and/or they will be prepared for it.
     -- Publius, USA     
  •  
    As long as the vote is fair and accurate then we are safe. We may not like the outcome but we are saved by the "wisdom" of man, that is that in public affairs in our republic the "wisdom" of the majority shall rule, not that it is correct but only that it shall rule. As far as the Truths of The Book it would appear from a survey of the populace who embrace it that there are many and often opposing Truths. So what gives there? Nice discussion with you.
     -- Waffler, Smith     
  •  
     
    Rate this quote!
    How many stars?
    0
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5

     
    What do YOU think?
    Your name:
    Your town:
        CLICK JUST ONCE!

    More Quotations
    Get a Quote-A-Day! Free!
    Liberty Quotes sent to your mail box.
    RSS Subscribe
    Quotes & Quotations - Send This Quote to a Friend

    © 1998-2019 Liberty-Tree.ca