An idiological twin of Bloomberg, Watts, Feinstein and Obama,

from (formerly Great)Britain, makes a number of the standard attacks on our 'unreasoning' affection for the right to arms.  This guy deals with him pretty well.
Does Fiske-Harrison not realize that from the American perspective—using our Second Amendment and state and federal gun laws as the standard—the right to keep and bear arms no longer exists in Britain? Far from enshrining it, the Brits have amputated it almost beyond recognition. Treating the two nations as if their gun policies were in any way similar is disingenuous at best. It mystifies me why Fiske-Harrison would attempt to foist such misinformation upon us.
(Because he's a liar, like the above-noted quartet?)
But he shows his true colors when he argues that “the state has, and should have—in large part—a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, and therefore on the tools of violence,” revealing himself as an opponent of the Second Amendment, which stipulates specifically that the state shall not have a monopoly (“in large part”—whatever that means—or otherwise) on tools of violence: that citizens too have the right to utilize those tools. “The legitimate use of violence” includes citizens’ use of firearms—including pistols—in lawful self-defense.

What Fiske-Harrison’s words do accurately describe is the current state of affairs in Britain, where the state does possess a complete monopoly on specifying the conditions of gun ownership. Is Fiske-Harrison mystified that we Americans do not wish to surrender our freedoms in a similar fashion?
I have my doubts he's mystified; I think he's dismissive of us, and is doing all he can push us into surrender.

It's hard to deal with people like this at times; you wonder if they're actual believers in what they write, or if they fully understand our point of view and see it as an obstacle to complete .gov control, therefore we must be changed.  Or, in the view of the Madame Defarge of Slate, Susie Madrak:
...at what point does the federal government literally go to war with its own citizens? Because we’re not talking about bank robbers here, we’re talking about (mostly) non-criminal cranks — scofflaws and political malcontents. So what line has to be crossed in the good old U.S. of A. before we start mowing them down to make our point? Because you can’t talk about the Bundy ranch without talking about Ruby Ridge, and Waco.
we're people who refuse to toe the line she and the other socialists demand, therefore we should be killed.*

Go read it all.  Stell concentrates on two parts of the right to arms, self-defense and warning the .gov that there are lines much better not crossed, but well worth reading.



*Note that she writes this crap, and then claims that These assholes want a civil war so bad, they can taste it.  Which assholes you talking about, Madrak?  When do you realize you're looking in a mirror when you say that?