Wednesday, October 18, 2017

And the EUnchs throw fits

The lower house of the Czech parliament has agreed to alter the constitution so that firearms can be held legally when national security is threatened.

The amendment gives Czechs the right to use firearms during terrorist attacks.

It was passed by the lower house by a big majority, and is likewise expected to be approved by the upper house.

The move by parliament is a challenge to EU gun control rules which restrict civilians from possessing certain kinds of semi-automatic weapons.
From the sound of it this is a lot more than "You can shoot back during a terrorist attack"; more like "Yes, you have the right to arms." or something along those lines.  Be interesting to find out exactly what it does say.


mark leigh said...

It is good to see that at least some Europeans respect the inalienable right of selfdefense enough to recognize the need for weapons to do so. Now if the gun grabbers here would wake up we might finally get a handle on gun crime.

Bradley Pierson said...

To be fair, it's more like they recognize the utility of the (as they see it) state-given privilege of self defense, so much so that they're willing to extend it. But only under the circumstances.

If they recognized it as an inalienable right, they'd be protecting it under much different terms.

Anonymous said...

These are Europeans. The concept of G-d given inalienable rights inherent in each individual is not part of their intellectual universe. Submission to a state or ruler is built-in to their worldview. The Czechs are doing the best that they can come up with from their cultural perspective. I understand their justification for an armed citizenry and enjoy the panic of Brussels.

Subotai Bahadur

Anonymous said...

Dropping by to say Hi to you Firehand, glad to see that you are in good form!

kind regards
For the comentator above, Hugo Grotius (1583-1645) established that Natural Law does not require the existence of a god, it exists and can be discovered by man, independently of the existence or non existence of a deity.

Just regarding the imaginary deity that some of your "uplifter" (see Mencken for an explanation) countrymen and country-wimminzez seem to believe in
I'm with Bakunin;
It's not a question of "if it didn't exist, you'd have to invent it"
It's more like, "If it did exist, you'd have to destroy it"