Covid-19 & Totalitarianism: Does USA Right to Bear Arms Make Sense Now?
Then there’s this warning from an American police officer…
Comment:
More than once we’ve discussed the American Second Amendment right to bear arms. I’ve always taken the scaredy-cat attitude of “oops! better not!” That Americans are queuing up to buy more and more guns, then, some who have never owned a gun before, made me think. And this was before the news was out that the World Health Organisation is telling us to prepare for authorised investigators to come into our homes to test us for the virus and remove anyone who tests positive.
I was recounting this news to a friend yesterday, who caught me by surprise when – a most gentle person – she asked, suddenly, where she could buy a gun: how to get a permit. I laughed it off, but it made me think. As did the very thoughtful policeman in the video above. Is it an American phenomenon, the possibility of bloodshed on the streets, or could that happen in the UK, as well? If so, what to do? Perhaps we should simply redouble our efforts to persuade our political representatives to put an end to what seems to be a case of hurtling towards a permanent system of totalitarian government.
But, in case that doesn’t work, consider this: if a government health official comes to your home and wants to remove a member of your family, how will you deal with it?
Let’s hear your ideas – both temporal and spiritual – for overcoming this time of trial.
Our Lady of Fatima, pray for us!
Comments (76)
Really? Really? Bonkers. This blog is beginning to worry me. Seriously. Stop reading American tosh.
Nobody needs to worry about this blog. In fact, come to think of it, nobody needs to read it. The people who worry ME most are not even the folks who don’t want to explore difficult issues, but those who clearly DO read this blog but only appear when they want to criticise us.
I note that you fail to address an important question in the introduction, so I repeat it here for ease of reference:
Key Question: If a government health official comes to your home and wants to remove a member of your family, how will you deal with it?
Answer… ?
I am incredulous. When the second amendment was written, the average army consisted of cavalry, musketeers, and horse drawn artillery. They didn’t even have telegraphy to issue commands, relying instead on pigeons, flags and bugles.
The United States military have submarines that can remain underwater without refueling for as long as they have enough food on board. And from these submarines, from anywhere in the world’s oceans, they can launch missiles, and a single Trident missile contains several independently targetable warheads, each with the capacity to destroy an entire city, killing the vast majority of its inhabitants in an instant. They also have bomber aircraft that can enter an enemy’s airspace undetected. They have lasers that can shoot down planes. They have earth penetrating bombs that can destroy hardened bunkers many metres underground. They have drones that can take out terrorist hideaways in foreign countries, operated in the comfort of an airbase in the middle of Colorado. And this is only the technology that we know about… imagine what else they’re capable of.
I’m sorry, but the idea that a civilian militia (a bunch of American men with guns, on average overweight) will resist a tyrannical government is absurd.
I am happy that we have no second amendment in the United Kingdom. Thankfully, this means it is not necessary for our police force to be routinely armed, since our gun crime rate is so low. God forbid they start giving the local bobbies guns.
The point I was making [in my comment above] was, if the police in Great Britain are armed then it will only lead to the police acting in a more authoritarian way. And if we legalised gun ownership in UK then it absolutely would lead to an armed police force, God forbid.
Miles,
Faulty reasoning, and actually, reasoning identical to the gun control crowd here in the USA. Arming policemen does not make them “more authoritarian.” Our policemen have been armed for generations, and have been respected and admired members of their communities for lo these many years. What makes them more authoritarian is superiors controlled by tyrannical politicians.
In other words, guns – despite the irrational claims of the gun control advocates – do not cause crime. People cause crime.
The police in the UK have always had access to arms. They seldom had any requirement to use them.
The British people had access to arms until the end of the last century. There were few crimes involving firearms.
With all due respect, as an American citizen AND a US Marine veteran, the American Revolution was not fought by a cavalry nor a well-trained militia. They were ordinary patriots who begged King George to hear their position and were dually ignored until bloodshed ensued. The American colonists didn’t start off wanting to be free of England; they wanted fairness and for British soldiers to stop forcibly entering their homes.
That being said, there are over 250 million guns in the US. The gun-owners out-number the military members and police by a lot. The superior firepower of our military only serves to strengthen our resolve. Our 2A was written to remind our elected Government that, should tyranny strike we are fully capable – and required- to put it down.
The oath we take as military and first responders is to our Constitution, to defend her against “all enemies, foreign and domestic.” As a mother, a veteran, and a pregnant wife- I can assure you that yes, if anyone tries to come into our homes to remove us to “quarantine” there will swiftly be bloodshed. This is precisely why it has been slow to happen, and can ONLY happen in areas where the public has already been disarmed (e.g. Chicago, NYC, CA).
Your idea that we are all over-weight hillbillies is laughable. While Americans aren’t small folks on average, not all of us 2A defenders are obese. Furthermore, you clearly have never been to the rural areas where those “good ole boys” live. I can promise you that country folk have a private arsenal the likes of which on average would blow your mind and by Heaven they know how to use it. We grow up hunting, fishing, and God-fearing in much of the US. What the media represents is the liberal lunatics in the big cities. Most of America is considered “fly over country” which is why the DNC and RINO Republicans like to forget we exist. 65M Americans turned out to elect Trump in 2016 because we are sick of not being heard. And now they want to strip us of our Liberties? God gave us those; and we will fight to the death for them.
Our liberal media and NWO Elites forget- as you have- we are founded on civil disobedience and a massive distrust of our Government. They are lucky we are slow to anger, but it is a powder keg here. Everyone is holding their breath and hoping our leaders wake up before someone pops off and it begins. I can promise you, as a Catholic and a mother, if anyone comes to my door to remove me, my husband, or my children for this COVID crap they will be met with force. And believe me too when I say, I am not alone.
Well, the Taliban and the Viet Cong were able to hold out against the might of the American military, so maybe the free citizens of the United States will be able to withstand the government after all, in some kind of bloody guerilla combat, something akin to the third third secret of Fatima. But I don’t see it happening as I think the average citizen in Europe and America is too brainwashed or complacent to be bothered to act.
Mama B,
Thank you for that excellent post, and for your service to our country. As you seem to already know, this fake pandemic has been long in the planning, and an attempt to use the stooges in white lab coats to frighten the populace into submission to dystopian nightmares (perhaps the fake science of evolution turned out to be a trial run…)
I’m just waiting to see what sort of opt-out excuses these stooges come up with when it’s vaccine time….
RCA Victor,
And that is another reason why we ought to fear the “contact and trace investigators” coming into our homes. What if their authority extends to forcing us to be vaccinated? The useful idiots are already longing for the vaccine – they just won’t be telt, as we say here in Scotland.
Miles Immaculatae,
Have you wondered, though, about when the armed military may be brought in to help quell the population? Remember, the key point of all that is going on around us, is control. The Government wants to control us. They have access to weapons, we don’t. I’m not advocating everyone being armed with guns or anything else. I’m just interested in the answer to the key question, which so far nobody has addressed, so I repeat it here, for ease of reference…
Key Question: If a government health official comes to your home and wants to remove a member of your family, how will you deal with it?
I don’t know how I would deal with it. I certainly don’t think shooting them would be justified, unless there is a threat to life. One cannot shoot anyone for merely coming into your home and force must be reasonable. But what I do know is I am no match for the civil authorities. We cannot have recourse to violent action when dealing with a tyrannical state. The only effective weapon we have now is the Holy Rosary.
Glasgow 1919. English soldiers and tanks sent up to control the city.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square
There can never be justification for a Catholic to resort to violence under a totalitarian government, the martyrs stand as testimony to this truth. We would simply have to trust in God to deliver us when He so chooses and in the meantime do whatever we can peacefully to challenge the situation. I would not want any other country to adopt the gun totting policy of the U.S., which has proved time and again to be catastrophic. Violence begets violence and those who take up the sword shall perish by the sword. Another adage that sticks with me is: “A society without justice is a violent society”. No, the Catholic weapons are prayer, penance, patience and resignation to the divine will.
I couldn’t disagree more. Even Christ said he without a sword should purchase one. This is not martyrdom for faith and church. That is wholly different. If you would allow a corrupt and evil entity (in this case our world government leaders/officials) to remove your spouse or -God forbid- your children from you then I pray for YOU. No civilization in the history of human kind can be completely taken over without first being disarmed. Just look to the atrocities of WWII for an example of how this plays out and ask yourself again if, indeed, there is no reason a Catholic or Christian should take up arms against their oppressors. The gas chambers weren’t the worst of what people suffered and the horrors they faced- the murder of babies and children for sport before the eyes of their mothers by the Nazi guards- should set your teeth on edge.
Not my family, friend. Not my family. I pray to God we don’t come to violence here in America but I am prepared to do so if I must. We all are, here. And our government knows it. This is why you haven’t seen bloodshed yet in our streets as people demonstrate their outrage via armed protests. It is also why you don’t see police rushing in to enforce the unconstitutional rules the idiot governors are trying to enact on small business owners when those businesses are protected by armed patriots. We are slow to anger, but most of America is Christian. Our belief in God doesn’t mean we surrender our right to live and protect our families. That’s not holy martyrdom- that’s sheep behavior. None of us is being persecuted for being Christian or Catholic, yet. THAT is martyrdom.
Mama B,
Your post is very enlightening and I thank you for it.
I think it boils down to the fact that we are just not used to the idea that the population should be armed and when we see on our TV screens the massacres in schools etc caused by someone going in to kill randomly with a gun, then we are totally switched off of the idea.
You present a very different case, though, and I do think there is something in the concept of the government knowing that the population is armed and that holding them back to a large extent. We are totally at the mercy of our government – and they know it.
Mama B,
One must be careful not to put patriotism before faith, although patriotism is a good thing in moderation. Not all parts of the American constitution are founded on Catholic principles, and much of it is based on Enlightenment principles, which is unsurprising considering that several of the Founding Fathers of the USA were Freemasons. Take the first amendment for example, freedom of speech. In the UK we do not have ‘freedom of speech’ in the American sense. But freedom of speech is not actually a positive right and the traditional teaching of the Catholic Church does not support it. We believe in ‘Catholic speech’, and this view permits that the state have certain limited rights over speech. The problem we face is that we do not have a ‘Catholic state’, but instead a Freemasonic state. Again, laïcité, as enshrined in the American constitution is not Catholic either, but entirely Freemasonic.
Another aspect of American life that American Catholics should take care to moderate is individualism. The USA zealously upholds individual rights, and that is commendable, but there must be limits. Should this attitude of individualism lead to a culture of self-preservation then it ceases to be a good thing. The ‘common good’ must come before one’s own or one’s own family’s needs.
Heads of families would do better to run and hide, than to stand their ground.
I feel that your understanding of world war II history is inaccurate. I must point out that the National Socialist movement actually started as a civilian militia. The Nazis were ordinary men and women and ordinary men an women elected the Nazis into power, and it was in fact the Nazis who tore up the constitution of the Weimar Republic. And it was armed Nazi thugs who murdered the rightful ruler of Austria, the saintly Catholic statesman Engelbert Dollfuss.
I therefore do not believe that the idea world war II and the Holocaust could have been prevented if more Europeans had been armed is a tenable position. Most German men were armed, and they were fighting on the beaches, in North Africa and on the Eastern Front! They could have overthrew the government, but instead they fought for Nazi regime up until they were all starving and dying of Typhus, which is when they surrendered. The Jews perished because not enough German people cared enough about them, and pretended to be ignorant when the Jews were being rounded up. That’s why the Holocaust happened. It has little to do with ordinary citizens being armed.
Mama B,
Thank you for both of your comments here – very interesting, logical and highly informative.
Athanasius,
Would your assertion, that a Catholic can never justify “violence” (I would say armed resistance) to a totalitarian government, not mean that Catholics could never participate in war? If you then point to the just war theory to allow for that exception, does that same theory not apply if the aggressor is our own Government, seeking to impose a totalitarian regime? Being armed, remember, does not necessarily mean using a weapon, but I imagine a Government with an armed population would think a tad more carefully about imposing unjust laws on its people than Boris and Nicola appear to be doing at the moment.
Of course, you are correct in that our first weapons must be prayer and trust in God, but I’m increasingly concerned about our own personal responsibility in such a scenario. I’m thinking of the illustrative story of the Evangelical Christian who found himself stranded on a tiny rock out in the middle of the sea; panic sets in but he consoles himself that if he trusts in God, he will be brought to safety. Then a boat comes along and the sailor calls to him, asking if he wants to be taken ashore. He thanks the sailor but rejects his offer on the grounds that God will help him. Soon, a helicopter hovers overhead and lets down a rope. Again the man rejects the help, saying that he trusts in God to help him. Eventually, he is lost, poor soul. Now, that’s just a story, but it makes the point that we have to take responsibility, under God, albeit trusting in His Divine Providence, to keep ourselves safe. And we must recognise His help when reflecting on all available means of protecting our lives and our Faith.
Now, I’m not advocating guns or any other weapons – not at all. I’m just curious to find out what sort of answers bloggers may find to solve the problem set in the introduction but which, so far, nobody has addressed.
Key Question: If a government health official comes to your home and wants to remove a member of your family, how will you deal with it?
And note: this is not a hypothetical question. We know that, because the WHO told us that preparation is underway (under the guise of tracking and tracing) to send “contact investigators” into our homes, with authority to test everyone and remove anyone who tests positive.
I have reflected on what I would have done, if some authoritarian health official had come to my home when my mother was still alive, and taken her away. I mean tried to take her away…
Just curious to know what others would do, or think they would do in such circumstances.
The man in the story rejected help, and drowned. When facing God immediately thereafter, he chastises God, saying why did you not help me, I put my faith in You?
God replied, ” I sent you a boat, and I sent you a helicopter, and you rejected them. Don’t blame Me!”
A variation of this theme… a devout man upon dying asks God why he never won the lottery after having prayed for this intention every day of his adult life. God replies, “it would have helped if you’d have bought a ticket”.
Miles Immaculatae,
Love it!
Antoine Bisset,
Yes, I suppose I should have added that explanatory bit – always makes me laugh; it’s a great way to explain the nature of Divine Providence. Doesn’t mean we put our feet up and leave it all to God. If only 😀
Editor
Sorry to come back on your comment so late in the evening, I have spent the entire day doing essential gardening and I am now very sore, tired and hungry. Still, I will force out a few lines just to keep my pay in the upper zeros bracket.
Just war is obviously different in that we would enter armed conflict under government authority against a foreign aggressor. In those circumstances we would be part of a larger force of people all acting to defend the country for the common good. In the case in hand it’s not quite the same, it’s more personal than for the common good and it would be against government authority, albeit abusive authority, rather than in conjunction with it. Violence in response to personal suffering is not as justifiable, though not automatically criminal or sinful either, though in this case I would say that because people wouldn’t be getting dragged away to certain death or cruel torture, or even for a great length of time, the evil would not justify a violent response, which I think would lead to anarchy.
No, terrible as these abuses of authority are, they can’t justify a violent response from individuals. What we can do though, in addition to prayer, is use every legal means to rid ourselves of any government that imposes such a totalitarian regime. We could also peacefully undermine everything they are trying to achieve by going out and miing more with other people, etc.
Athanasius,
That’s right, rub it in that your garden is the best kept garden in Scotland, see if I care!
I think we’ll just have to agree to disagree on this one. There’s really no right and wrong answer anyway, which is a puzzle because I’m always right, but hey, I’ve never be good at maths 😀
Seriously, though,watching the viciousness of those Chinese officials in the video below, which I posted around 8.30-ish pm, when they removed a family against the family’s will to place them into quarantine, with the poor people unable to do anything about it, I can’t help thinking that God would understand if I did something drastic…
https://i.pinimg.com/236x/37/21/55/372155ff7a227472283eba2fdf06069f–warning-signs-gun-humor.jpg
Editor
That sign is hilarious, I want one!
I’m not so sure my garden will be quite so good this year, cost me twice the price for plants and some of my usuals couldn’t be sourced. Still, I managed to get 200 in between ground and baskets today with a further 100 waiting for tomorrow (front garden), so it will hopefully look nice a few weeks from now. My one complaint is that I really could have been doing with the assistance of help the aged, that was seriously hard graft. I feel like I’ve just been dragged out of my house and received a good kicking from the quarantine police, boy am I sore!
On the thread question, all I can say is that, assuming you’re already armed to the teeth, yes, you’re right and I’m wrong. I’ve never been smacked on the head with two soup pots at the same time, so I concede temporarily until those pots find their way back into the cupboard.
Athanasius,
Excellent points you make. As you explain, violent resistance against the state is not morally justified. Coups d’état and revolutions rarely lead to good government. What usually happens, as can be seen throughout history, is that the new regime ends up being more oppressive and more tyrannical than the very one it overthrew!
Miles Immaculatae,
I wonder if you would consider civil disobedience, refusing to obey a government to be “violence” in a sense? I checked out the Catechism on this:
“Authority does not derive its moral legitimacy from itself. It must not behave in a despotic manner, but must act for the common good as a moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility: A human law has the character of law to the extent that it accords with right reason, and thus derives from the eternal law. Insofar as it falls short of right reason it is said to be an unjust law, and thus has not so much the nature of law as of a kind of violence. (1902)
Authority is exercised legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not be binding in conscience. (1903)
The citizen is obliged in conscience not to follow the directives of civil authorities when they are contrary to the demands of the moral order, to the fundamental rights of persons or the teachings of the Gospel. Refusing obedience to civil authorities, when their demands are contrary to those of an upright conscience, finds its justification in the distinction between serving God and serving the political community. “Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” “We must obey God rather than men (humans).” (2242)
On the subject of armed resistance, the Catechism says this in paragraph 2243:
“Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met: 1) there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights; 2) all other means of redress have been exhausted; 3) such resistance will not provoke worse disorders; 4) there is well-founded hope of success; and 5) it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.”
So, it may be, in the end, a conscience issue, but being a Catholic does not mean relinquishing all our basic human rights, IMHO, judging by the above paragraphs from the Catechism.
Josephine,
I suspect the conditions in paragraph 2243 must be judged by the Church, and not the subjective judgement of individual citizens.
Josephine,
I almost missed this – very good work, indeed!
I must chew over those quotes from the Catechism when I get a minute.
It seems clear, though, that in employing common sense to make a practical judgment at the time of any incident (such as officials coming with civil authority to enter our homes, removing someone against their will, infringing our basic rights) then logically, we must be permitted to defend ourselves. It makes no sense, it seems to me, to say we may justify going to fight a foreign enemy government, even kill them, but must accept and obey a domestic enemy government in a matter as serious as taking away our basic freedoms – which includes our right and freedom to worship God.
It’s a while since I’ve watched the Coronvirus update from Westminster and there’s really no point now that we are stuck with the Sturgeon version of lockdown (which is merciless) but I did watch the Downing Street broadcast today; the expert medical man, Professor Van Tam, used words to the effect that this situation is here for good. Earlier, I heard, yet again, the Irishman at the World Health Organisation exhorting us to get used to “the new normal”.
We are never going to regain the freedoms we had a few weeks ago. That’s a fact. And there is not a single thing we can do about it. So, really, I concede, this thread is for theological and moral consideration only. We’re never going to be able to go out and buy a gun. And considering how long it took me to learn to use a computer, it’s maybe just as well 😀
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/0d/7a/04/0d7a04c754c047c4758d241514fe4842.jpg
I’ve been pondering your repeated question about what I would do if officials came to my home to remove a member of the family who has tested corona positive. Well they are hardly going to throw the person in a police van and thence into a dungeon are they? If such a situation came to pass then I imagine the sick person would be taken to a quarantine centre until they were declared free from the virus. I can’t see at the moment that such a scenario is likely to arise anyway. In Sierra Leone during the Ebola outbreak it was sometimes necessary to place suspected victims in quarantine be cause the village lifestyle made it impossible to self isolate in the way we are doing here. The idea of compulsory vaccine is another story of course and in some countries it is mandatory for children to be vaccinated before they can start school. But it not essential to have a flu vaccine.
Elizabeth,
And there is not a shred of doubt in my mind, that yours will be the majority view when this comes to pass. Out – if not exactly “about” – today, I found, yet again, a compliance and a totally unsuspicious acceptance of everything we are told by what is now, clearly, a State-controlled broadcast media.
You see, at one time, I have no doubt, you, like my unworthy self, would have balked at the idea of being “taken” from your home into quarantine for any reason. Even when faced with a gravely serious/terminal diagnosis, the doctor usually leaves it to the patient to accept or decline treatment. I know when my GP rang me some time ago because I had been unwilling to attend hospital for some important tests, he urged me to keep the appointment but said it was entirely my decision. Several times in the conversation he recommended that I go, but when I expressed my misgivings, he always emphasised that it was my decision. In turn, I told him that, in the end, I would abide by his judgement, and, in the end, I did attend (and received the “all clear”! Deo gratias!)
You may say that this virus is different, danger of spreading etc. but the fact is, according to the experts, the majority of people who become infected, get better.
So, for the WHO to prepare to send investigators into our homes to test for a virus from which most people recover, if they get it at all, seems over the top, to say the least.
As for the unlikelihood of those who test positive being thrown into a dungeon… well, I wonder what happened to the people in the short video clip below, forcibly removed from their homes in China; by the way, the clip begins with a warning that some people might find the scenes upsetting – I don’t think so. There is now a hardness in people already which reflects the effectiveness of totalitarianism, even in the relatively small doses to which we are being subjected at the moment… Should these people just have gone quietly, or were they right to want to stay in their own homes? Human nature, remember, is universal – Chinese officials do not have a unique human nature; the same officiousness, the same authoritarianism exhibited by these people will come to our homes, too. It’s just a matter of time – if the World Health Organisation is to be believed.
Our human rights are rather more limited than the law suggests, as the secular version in common usage were been dreamed up by some tipsy UN officials after they got bored with poker on a damp evening in New York.
After God we owe a duty to our family, and the Church, Christ’s Mystical Body.
The state has an imposed a “lockdown” on us, cutting us off from our families. The state has imposed the closure of our churches, cutting us off from our religious devotions and the solace of our religion.
I’d say that this meets the conditions you mention in respect of armed resistance. Conditions 3, 4 and 5 are impossible as they require the ability to forecast the future.
Athansius,
What about the Vendee Rebellion, and the Cristeros?
RCAVictor
Those were direct attacks on the Faith of the nation, worse even than a foreign invasion in normal warfare. I don’t think we could put the present situation anywhere near that category. The talk is of people being removed from their home and isolated for a few weeks until the fake virus is said to have left them. It may be the thin edge of the wedge to greater abuses of power but it could never justify a violent response, particluarly one of lethal force.
Athanasius,
Just to clarify an important detail…
I don’t think it is fair to keep speaking about “a violent response” or other such uses of the term “violence”. Self-defence is not usually referred to in that way. I’ve never suggested violence, but I am merely asking the perfectly legitimate question – permitted by the Church – as to whether or not I would be right to defend myself against a totalitarian government. According to the quotes from the Catechism above, it IS perfectly acceptable to do so. St Thomas Aquinas, a proponent of common sense, would surely agree.
It is clearly a matter of conscience but it really doesn’t help to imply that those who may feel conscience-bound (to protect families, for example) or, at least, believe we have a right to do so, it really isn’t fair to suggest that they are therefore sinning against the Commandment to not kill. Nobody is suggesting being an aggressor, we are merely exploring the right to self-defence, in ALL circumstances. Just because it’s a government official(s) doing the aggression, doesn’t alter our right to self-defence.
The idea that people are removed for a few weeks in order to isolate them until the virus is cured, is to ignore the totalitarian method which is part of the imposition of totalitarian one-world government, about to descend upon us. In China, people are not removed for a few weeks – they disappear. If you are happy to risk being sent to the “re-education” camps or whatever they’re calling these quarantine centres now, so be it. Others may feel compelled to fight the aggressor in order to, at least, not succumb too gracefully to their abusive behaviour.
I will not be accepting any vaccine, for example, and this is likely to be a cause for either forcible removal or intensified house arrest (see link below) and believe me, I will not be going gracefully, nor will I take kindly or obediently to any intensified stay-at-home order..
https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/washington-gov-those-who-dont-cooperate-with-contact-tracers-and-tests-not-allowed-to-leave-home
As I’ve said previously, we’re going to have to agree to disagree on this but I really don’t think it’s fair to keep speaking about a violent response when all that is being discussed is self-defence. The Church has always taught that we are permitted a proportionate self-defence against an aggressor which, logically, means that if my life is under threat from an aggressor, then I am permitted to respond to protect my life.
Just remembered something; I had a friend once (what a memory!) who lived in a perfectly nice area, not particularly high crime, but she always slept with a knife under her pillow in case anyone broke in during the night. When I asked her if she would actually be able to bring herself to use it, her answer was along the lines that if anyone comes into my home with the intention of doing me harm, they must take what they get. I always let her win arguments 😀
Catholics taking up arms to resist state oppression is how the Catholic Defence Associations started at the beginning of the troubles in Northern Ireland.
Tackling the Coronavirus crisis with armed militias roaming the towns and villages of Scotland armed with automatic machine guns is a bold suggestion. By “bold suggestion” I obviously mean completely bonkers idea!
Editor: it’s very easy to rubbish something. Please answer the question in the introduction. What would YOU do if a government health official comes to YOUR home with authority to remove a member of YOUR family? “Bonkers” is easy – there’s no intellectual skill required to come up with that term which, by definition, labels a person as “mentally irregular”. Not nice and terribly non-pc. Insults only make the person doing the insulting look bad, so I suggest that you redeem your position here as a first-time blogger, by trying to put forward a cogent argument for your position – AFTER you answer the topic question, please and thank you.
Fergie,
I don’t see where anybody suggested “armed militias roaming the towns and villages of Scotland armed with automatic machine guns”.
To answer the question, I just don’t know what I would do if someone came to my home and tried to remove any member to take them into quarantine. I remember that video showing the WHO man and the American mayor or governor or whatever he was, saying that if a home had several people living in it but only one bathroom that would be a reason to remove. I think most of us only have one bathroom, so that’s very worrying.
Knowing myself, I’d probably cry and plead but I’ve no physical strength, and I’d be useless with a weapon, LOL! I wouldn’t want the menfolk using guns either, so I just don’t know what the answer is. Of course we have to pray and I appreciated the total consecration to Our Lady which editor posted on the Fatima thread late last night. We can definitely arm ourselves spiritually the best we can, but if they actually come to take away one of my family, I’d be beside myself with anxiety and anger.
I think I might try to barricade us in, so that they have to actually break down the door in the hope that they would stop short of doing that.
It’s ingrained in Americans, the right to bear arms, but it’s equally ingrained in us not to do so.
Fergie,
No one would be “tackling the Corona virus,” which does not even exist. Anyone who armed themselves would be resisting the tyrannical abuse of power by authorities, using the fake disease as an excuse to deprive citizens of their freedom.
And, as Lily already pointed out, no one here has suggested using armed militias, etc. So stop exaggerating and make a serious point, please.
It would be over my dead body that ANY official would remove one of my barns from our home! I can’t see that me being “armed” would help one little bit. I’d simply get shot!
Helen,
So, what would you DO to stop the official removing one of your bairns?
People are instinctually more protective of their children. But I suspect that many people would do nothing if the authorities came for their elderly relatives. They would happily hand them over some of them. Consider that many people think nothing of dumping their own parents in care homes. It’s become the culture. I think that future generations will look back with horror on the care homes, how vulnerable elderly people were dumped there and neglected and sometimes abused. Just as we today look back with horror at the workhouses of industrial times.
Miles Immaculatae,
But what about you? What would YOU do if they came to take away YOUR elderly parent(s)?
If people from the government come to take them away then how could I possibly resist them? We could barricade the front door, but eventually wouldn’t the police be called? And wouldn’t they apply more and more force until they got what they wanted? Assuming I had a gun, hypothetically, and if I used it, wouldn’t a gun battle ensue, leading to a bloodbath where I and others die in vain? That is not moral. If you have absolutely no chance of winning then you give up and turn to God. One of the principles in judging just war is probability of success.
Miles Immaculatae,
Good points. I think my take on the gun law is that I am assuming that the government officials won’t come banging down our doors for fear of exactly what you describe. I’m not advocating gunning down government officials; my thoughts are meandering along the lines that, possibly, when a population is legitimately armed, the government will think twice about telling us to stay in our homes and behave like good little boys and girls – I could be wrong of course (er!?!) but I remember thinking that when watching the scenes from (I think) Catalonia (somewhere in Europe) when the protesters were taken to task by the police and it was terrible – blood everywhere. I think I even said on this blog that they might have thought their strategy differently if the people had been armed, as well. Who knows.
Anyway, I’ve just remembered that I forgot to email you to say may I change my mind and ask for the whole thing? Don’t give anything away – I’ll try to remember to email now that I’ve written that, just to be sure you get the message.
That second paragraph is top secret folks, so don’t even think about asking 😀
Ed,
I had failed to consider what you describe, which is having guns as a deterrent. That completely changes the morals of the situation. I don’t think it is immoral per se for individual citizens to possess guns as a deterrent, should the territory they are in provide for this in law. But it is a risky deterrent, considering that guns stored in houses have often known to have been stolen by the children of the owners and used in all sorts of tragedies, Adam Lanza at Sandyhook comes to mind.
I am not convinced about the logic of deterrent. Many countries have nuclear weapons for example. The idea behind this is that an enemy will not use nuclear weapons against another state possessing nuclear weapons, because they would retaliate and this would lead to the mutually assured destruction of both countries. Mutually assured destruction is the name of this cold war doctrine. Mutual Assured Destruction… MAD.
As I said: over my dead body! I’d fight them with whatever came to hand but I wouldn’t see the point in being armed with a firearm as they, if they weren’t already armed, would come back armed. Where’d we be then?! I suppose we’d flee to somewhere safer if we could. I don’t see it coming to that though.
Has anyone read Michael D O’Brien’s “The Plague Journal”? It speaks of a somewhat similar situation where the state is creeping towards totalitarianism and most people don’t notice.
The Second Amendment was added to the US Constitution to allow the people to resist tyranny.
It stays in place for that same reason. There is a greater likelihood of tyranny now than there has ever been. The value of 2A is greater than the cost that we see in school massacres and the like. Such things are used by the opponents of 2A to discredit it, wrongly. Can we be sure that the massacres are not initiated by those who would allow tyranny, even work for it?
In this country we have been disarmed. Read any thriller of the early 20th century and our heroes, Sherlock Holmes/Watson, Richard Hannay, Bulldog Drummond and others thought nothing of slipping a revolver in their pocket before going out to do their work. No one else was concerned about it either. At that time there were probably lots of guns around, many of them souvenirs of wars.
The most serious gun incident in the UK was maybe the siege of Sidney Street in 1911, and those involved were foreign gangsters.
Hand guns were banned in the UK after Dunblane. Dunblane has never been early explained and all the documentation has been sealed from inspection, research for publication for 100 years. Yet for centuries British people were trusted to be sensible with weapons, even after the attempted assassination of Queen Victoria.
We have been rendered helpless, and now those who would control us have their hands about our throats. We cannot go to the beach or the dance hall or the pub with our chums. They are planning to extend that level of control forever.
PS The number of crimes recorded in the UK in 1911 was 90,000, and 1m a year in the 1960s. Crime shoots upwards almost directly in line with immigration.
I think there is a simple explanation as to why there have been so many tragic mass shootings in the USA. It is because mentally unbalanced people have too easy access to guns. Eliot Roger being the first that comes to mind. I suspect that vast majority of British people are frightened and perturbed by thought of them or their neighbours owing guns.
Miles Immaculatae,
I thought I’d check out the position regarding the mentally ill and it turns out, as you would expect, guns can’t be sold, by law, to mentally ill people
https://thegunrights.com/mentally-ill-and-gun-laws/
Obviously if someone becomes mentally unstable while they have a gun in their possession that would be dangerous but we already have record knife killings in the UK, and I’m not sure if they are always down to mental illness.
Lily,
It’s difficult to judge whether someone is mentally ill, and I suspect the screening process relies mainly on self-disclosure. Some people can hide it, such as the Germanwings disaster, suicide by pilot. Others, as you mention, develop mental illness after they have obtained a gun. Other mentally ill people sometimes have access to family weapons that weren’t secured properly, such as the case of Adam Lanza at Sandyhook.
The dangers and risks associated with the ownership go along with general ownership of guns. There can be no risk free general ownership. It is price that the USA has chosen to pay.
We used to have fairly free and easy ownership of guns here in the UK. There were few problems with legal owners. Problems arose with criminals, such as yardies, and the police have access to weapons to deal with this aspect.
The alternative is as we have it. It is now almost impossible to own a weapon in the UK, unless you are a farmer. Shotguns are not ideal for resisting a heavily armed military overlordship. We are open to subjugation by a bad Government, which may be malicious, incompetent, or controlled from behind the scenes.
We are almost there. Although it may be that is in fact our present position.
This is very interesting – shows the tyranny at work in the name of this virus
I am completely behind the American lady above, whom I praise for her faith, devotion to her family, military service and patriotism. We are forbidden to kill unjustly, but the church makes exceptions based on scripture which include a just war and self defence against an unjust aggressor. If the feds came crashing through my door, were I an American, they would get both barrels of a shotgun. In the UK, however, I’m limited as to what I can do, apart from kick, bite, punch and scratch. The only time the police can come into my home and detain me is if I have committed a crime or mentally ill (through a psychiatric section).
However, what if a person was using Covid infection to harm others? An infected person spat at a bus driver and he later died. You hear all sorts of people spitting at others, or coughing over them. If infected people are known to have done that, or mentioned doing it to someone and their plans were reported to the law, then the police have the right to detain someone. I appreciate that not everyone, the majority in fact, will die, but some, namely the elderly or those with underlying conditions will be more susceptible.
In the words of the late William S. Burroughs: “I’d sure hate to live in a society where the only people with guns are the police and criminals”.
CC1,
Asking what if a person used a “Covid infection” to harm others is a legitimate question – if, however, there was such a thing as a Covid infection. Unfortunately, if you pay close attention to the Dr. Andrew Kaufman video posted on another thread, there is no Covid sickness per se, since no one has correctly identified what Covid is! Further, asks Dr. Kaufman, how can you test for something when you don’t know what it is, and when the only evidence you have is that antibodies to something have been created in the bloodstream? And further, that those “tests” have an 80% false positive record?
(And Dr. Kaufman’s thoughts have been seconded numerous times by medical professionals at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University).
The best explanation appears to be that this “thing” is a mild form of the flu, which could escalate into serious conditions if there are underlying conditions, and/or frailty due to age.
Now, the apologists for this “pandemic” repeatedly bring up the issue of “hotspots” like New York City, with large numbers of deaths. But the following questions are never asked:
1. What was the typical/average death rate, from 2019 and before, for New York during the time frame in which the new death rate numbers are published?
2. What figure do you get when you subtract the average death rate numbers from the 2020 scam-demic numbers? Would that number be positive, or negative?
3. If that number is positive, how many of those deaths were actually due to the flu-like illness, and how many were falsified as due to that illness, when they were due to something else? That is, how many were falsified using CDC instructions?
4. Subtracting #3 from #2, how many deaths are left?
(And getting back to #2, how many of that remainder number were due to patients being put on ventilators, rather than being given oxygen?)
RCA Victor,
I have no medical knowledge, so how is being put on a ventilator damaging?
Editor: there was a video on here recently (I’m sure it was posted more than once) where a young doctor said he had to speak out, in conscience, about the way ventilators are causing deaths.
CC,
Here’s the video again…
I am finding this discussion rivetting! I think all the arguments are great and thought-provoking.
I’ve always thought I would hate to live in a country where guns were legal like in the USA but I can see the argument for it more than I ever did before.
My gut feeling is (a) I still wouldn’t want to live in a country where anyone could buy a gun (the mentally ill excepted, of course) but also (b) I don’t like the feeling of helplessness which I am experiencing at the moment, reading about the police stopping people to question them about where they are going etc. Telling that nurse (on the Fatima thread) to get her boss to give her a letter to prove she’s a working nurse for when she’s stopped again! Yikes! That’s beyond the pale.
So, I’m not so sure now what is right and wrong in the matter of gun ownership. I do know that I won’t be standing back and watching any official take my cherished family away, or any member of it, without a fight. It’s what I need to use to fight that’s the problem, LOL!
But thanks for some great arguments here. It’s really made me think the whole thing through.
Michaela,
That’s a very commendable approach – it’s always good to have to stretch our thinking to check the logic or legitimacy of our own position and to see what, if anything we can learn from those who think differently. Having always taken a particularly one-sided view of this subject in the past, I’m finding myself a little more open to other arguments now, not least because of the possibility looming of being thrown in the back of one of those white vans, screaming at the needle…
However, all due respect etc., you didn’t fully answer the question – what precisely would you DO , to prevent your “cherished family” being taken away… What do you mean by putting up “a fight”?
To answer Editor’s lead question, I am the only person in my household, so if the men in the white lab coats and their shock troops came to my door to administer a “test” and/or to take me away, I would resist and start praying my Rosary.
And maybe, if I could get the computer going in time, I would play this song for them:
RCA Victor,
Priceless! Thank you SO much for that light relief… I think 😀
I notice, however, that you do not elaborate on “resist”. How so?
Editor,
I do not own a firearm, so I might just chain myself to my grand piano….
RCA Victor,
You mean, I’ve been wasting all my flattery on you all these years, been terribly careful not to disagree with you and you don’t even own a gun?!
Trust me to find the only American in, well, er, America who doesn’t own a gun. THAT’S no fun!
Editor,
My pen is mightier than my sword….
RCA Victor,
That is SO true… Did I mention that I’m writing a novel?
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/7d/39/4a/7d394a2d49bf8c6924a151c041e26b1a.jpg
https://scontent-ort2-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/97430438_1651589384996768_2237948561335517184_n.jpg?_nc_cat=108&_nc_sid=110474&_nc_ohc=FoslvSRbs_oAX9QKY08&_nc_ht=scontent-ort2-1.xx&oh=c53965c4af31210fa1375790cfe9d197&oe=5EE3B203
(Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea)
Interesting quote! Very! However, doesn’t say the name of the priest anywhere or show a priest, so slightly puzzled, which is an improvement on my usual condition of being totally puzzled 😀
Editor,
That was posted on Fr. Isaac Mary Relyea’s FB page.
The video by the American police officer in Seattle, posted at the top of this thread, rang a vague bell about a topic I came across years ago, during the Obama regime: the militarization of local police forces. This scam-demic has featured, among other images, the images and videos of heavily-armed groups of police lined up against protestors, who no longer look like the kindly neighborhood Officer O’Malley, but like military troops armed for battle.
Sure enough, I found some very interesting articles about this, so I will post them one at a time in order not to trigger Editor’s WordPress censors. First up:
https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/criminal-justice-policing-reform/militarization-of-police/
Teaser:
“What is Police Militarization?
Police militarization is defined by scholars as the “process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model.” This process tangibly occurs when a civilian police force adopts the equipment, operational tactics, mindsets, or culture of the military.”
Second one: this is the report linked to the word “defined” in the above paragraph:
https://cjmasters.eku.edu/sites/cjmasters.eku.edu/files/21stmilitarization.pdf
(EKU is Eastern Kentuky University)
Third one: this one, believe it or not, is by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which I regard as a subversive, leftist organization. They have been instrumental in pursuing “lawfare” against public displays of religion, especially displays on publicly owned (e.g. federal, state or local) property.
Nonetheless, here is their take on police militarization:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/police-militarization
Last one: this is the ACLU report linked to “War Comes Home” in the above ACLU article:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/war-comes-home?redirect=war-comes-home-excessive-militarization-american-policing
RCA Victor,
Lots of reading in these posts so I will get to them (around 2069! – kidding!)
Right now, though, I’m working on a new topic thread. Stand by 😀
Here is an Irish expert:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Avc6_ftzk3w&w=1195&h=672%5D
Crofterlady,
I’ve been meaning to come in to watch that video and now it’s gone – taken down by YouTube. Outrageous!
I wonder if it’s been saved anywhere else. That’s really annoying because it’s not often you find an Irishman protesting anything except the pubs closing (joke!)
The more we look to other people, organizations, and agencies to take care of us, the more totalitarian it becomes. The more we look to others to protect us, eventually, they’re the one’s subverting us. Simple lessons in life bear this out.
Comments are closed.