Quote of the day–James Higham

There was a time when it was not necessary to defend oneself in this country of ours. There was a time when an Englishman’s home was his castle. There was a time when a Briton wouldn’t dream of being armed.

That time has passed.

James Higham
July 20, 2009
[defending ourselves] the time has come
[James lives in the U.K. and is saying the gun and self-defense bans aren’t working and it’s time to change things. It is a little more timid than I would (and do) approach the subject but perhaps that is more appropriate when dealing with these people.

James uses several of the references I provided via email (and blog post). He also quotes Just One Question and my Jews in the Attic Test. Thanks for the links James.

So far the comments are essentially neutral. Perhaps people are thinking about it rather than just lashing out. If so, then perhaps there is hope for them yet.–Joe]


2 thoughts on “Quote of the day–James Higham

  1. Joe, it’s early days yet. Let me explain a little. My blog is usually read in RSS by people but those who do visit show up in stats and at the moment, the post on gun control has had a couple of hundred read it so far. Most readers tend to come to my blog late evening, our time [about six hours from now]. One other thing is that I usually don’t get a lot of comments on posts. We’ll see though.

    I had to smile about you going in harder than me – horses for courses. Thanks for the kind words and the help – this is just a start over my way. There’ll be follow ups.

  2. James, This comment on your site from Welshcakes caught my eye; “I still believe that violence begets violence.”

    As if there is moral equivalence between aggressive violence (initiation of force) and defensive violence (force used against the initiator, to stop the danger). If Welshcakes is correct– if violence only serves to beget more violence, then surely police should never be allowed to use force for any reason.

    I am reminded of a quote by Col. Jeff Cooper when he was asked whether violence merely begets violence. I paraphrase; “It is my sincere endeavor to see to it that it does. When someone initiates violence against another, he should receive more violence in return than he can handle.”

    I heard a line out of a movie this weekend. A citizen from a peaceful village (which was under attack) made the comment in response to the question of why they weren’t defending themselves; “That would make us no better than our attackers.”

    Wrong. Someone attacks innocent people, you defended innocent people. Attacking rights and defending rights cannot, by any stretch, be considered the same thing unless we first reject the very concept of human rights. That would be absolute depravity by my way of thinking.

    Then there is the purely tactical, or pragmatic aspect. In rejecting the concept of self-defense as immoral, you’re demanding that we be ruled by the most nasty, aggressive people on the planet– that they should be running everything, as no rules of any kind are enforceable.

    I fact, this line of reasoning (or what we are asked to accept as reasoning) is nothing more than an emotional self-protection mechanism. I fear adult responsibilities, so I come up with rationalizations that transform my fear, cowardice and immorality into a form of virtue.

    If any and all use of force is wrong, then why would one who holds that opinion wish to forcibly eliminate or restrict the keeping and bearing of arms? None of the anti’s thinking, even on its face, makes any sense at all. The only thread of consistency in their argument seems to be; submit, don’t think so much, submit, and submit, or else.

    There’s alway an “or else”, isn’t there? Give up your guns, or else! Violence is bad, so give up your guns or we’ll come after you with armed thugs and it won’t be pretty!

Comments are closed.