The Right to Bear Arms.

Is it necessary, given the current threat of knife attacks from criminal immigrants, that the natives of the Isles of Britain exercise our immemorial right to bear arms?

After all, have we not been deliberately disarmed and stopped from being able to effectively defend ourselves from any scumbag who pulls a knife out on us?

I am reminded of the scene in Crocodile Dundee where the protagonist pulls out huge knife when a mugger attempts to mug him with a relatively small one. Naturally, being of a cowardly disposition, the criminal runs away.

As a boy growing up in the 1970s, sheath knives were popular – we would often wear them attached to our belts as we went playing: not because we were intending to use them to attack people, but simply because it was part of boys’ culture and a knife was a tool.

One popular game at the time was called Stretch: the two players would stand toe-to-toe and take it in turns to throw our knives so that they would stick in the ground. Our opponent had to stretch his foot out to the knife and the loser was the one who couldn’t reach it.

Air pistols were also popular – I had a Webley, not powerful in any sense, it could fire darts and pellets. It was about this size but more rudimentary.

The right to self-defence is unalienable – if a burglar breaks into your home, you have the right to use whatever force is necessary to protect yourself and your family. If that force is lethal, then there is nothing the false authorities can do about it providing you stand your ground under the Law:

After all, any thief, mugger, extortionist or financial henchmen is in breach of the Law and that applies to any burglar who forces his way into your home.

The fact is that those referenced henchmen are invariably clad in Police uniforms and actively engage in assisting the extortionists when it comes to genocidal evictions. For instance, I would not have been thrown out and had my home stolen were it not for the unlawful assistance of Nottinghamshire Police Force who committed trespass, actual body harm, false arrest and imprisonment against me in order to get me out of the way whilst my house was stolen and ‘tinned up’.

The British people have been subjected to concerted governmental efforts to disarm them for the last 50 years or so. In fact, I would posit that we have been systematically dispossessed not only of our lands by a Rothschild-backed illegitimate cadre of false crown potentates but also of their weapons of choice, the right to bear arms in the face of oppressive Aristocratic-State-Military tyranny.

When the illegal forces of fake government have all the weaponry, the individual has to be as resourceful as those of his bloodline who took up arms against their would-be oppressors – namely the government.

The Hungerford and Dunblane false flags were prime examples of how such events were used to remove the right to bear arms (firearms) but there is nothing new in Government leglislation being enacted to disarm the people.

The Pentrich false flag event of 1817 is a prime example.

The use of scapegoats or patsies to blame for ‘terrorist events’ is a tried and tested methodology. One only has to consider the use of Osama Bin Laden as the purported organiser of the 9/11 attack, the Muslim patsies used in a variety of false flag events across Britain, the most recent being the London Attack, the Manchester ‘bombing’ and the Borough Market event which saw the purported muslim attackers (allegedly) assassinated by the police.

As ever, the narrative has to be controlled. Back in 1817, it was, of course, a different game for the access we now enjoy to all manner of media and technology enables the truth to be heard amidst the usual cacophony of lies – the fake news.

The events of 1817 led to the repressive legislation of 1819 known as the Six Acts being passed:

“The Training Prevention Act prohibited civilian bodies from training in the use of weapons. This piece of legislation hardly seems out of place in the modern world, let alone in the period of disaffection of the 18-teens. It also limited the activities of the agents provocateurs

 

The Seizure of Arms Act, linked to the the Training Prevention Act, gave JPs and magistrates the right to search private houses for weapons, to seize them and their possessors. This Act also limited the activities of the agents provocateurs

 

The Seditious Meetings Act restricted to parish level all public meetings that were called to discuss ‘any public grievance or any matter on Church and State’. Organisers had to proved local magistrates with due notice of the time and place of the meeting. The magistrates were empowered to change the date and/or time of the meeting at will, to prevent any attempt to organise insurrection. This was, perhaps, the most serious infringement of public liberty but it was repealed in 1824.

 

The Blasphemous and Seditious Libels Act fixed the penalties for these activities to fourteen years’ transportation. Magistrates were empowered to seek, seize and confiscate all libellous materials in the possession of the accused. This piece of legislation was not especially effective because it was never enforced rigorously, and also because of Fox‘s 1792 Libel Act. Juries were reluctant to convict people on flimsy evidence.

 

The Misdemeanours Act provided for speedier legal machinery so that people could be brought to trial faster. This reduced the likelihood of bail being obtained by the accused; it also allowed for quicker convictions. Perhaps this was no bad thing, on either count.

 

The Newspaper and Stamp Duties Act greatly increased the taxes on printed matter, including newspapers, periodicals and pamphlets. Publishers and printers had to provide securities for their ‘good behaviour’ . Any publication appearing at least once a month, and costing less than 6d. was subject to a tax of 4d. The Act restricted the freedom of the legitimate press. Radical publications simply went ‘underground’.” Source

All of which were portrayed as a loss of traditional freedoms, as enshrined under the constitution, as illustrated by this contemporary cartoon:

 

The man in the street may be currently labouring under the delusion that the government is there to help him but recent events mean that his delusion is hanging by a thread. Whether or not we are heading towards a true revolution is unlikely but it is fair to state that any genuine revolution would have to commence in the mind and heart of the individual. Party politics is a chimera that is beginning to break down. The collectivist mindset leads only to more government which invariably leads to more genocide, for that is the modus operandi of the state:

The conclusion is thus plainly stated: we have the right to bear arms in order to defend ourselves from any and all aggressors, irrespective of any and all legislation.

---

Thank you for reading. As ever, I am very grateful to those who have chucked a few quid into the coffers by way of the  Buy Me a Coffee button and/or have taken out a subscription to my Substack pages where, if you like, you can also support me by taking out a paid subscription which will grant you ‘first dibs’ on my output.