Britain has disarmed its populace and now gives preference to its criminal classes. The latest summary of some of the head-scratching things going on may be found in today’s Wall Street Journal, in an op-ed by Joyce Lee Malcom of the George Mason University School of Law (here in blue, blue Arlington, Virginia, I might add).
The essence: weapons can hurt people; criminals are people; mustn’t hurt criminals. Even criminals who have invaded your home and who are themselves armed with weapons. Worse, property owners are liable if passive protective measures might injure those poor, misunderstood criminals:
Victims of aggression who defend themselves or attempt to protect their property have been shown no such leniency. Burglars who injured themselves breaking into houses have successfully sued homeowners for damages. In February, police in Surrey told gardeners not to put wire mesh on the windows of their garden sheds as burglars might hurt themselves when they break in.
This may be an isolated example, but there are far too many such examples to dismiss. Britain appears to have lost its will to live as a nation of free men and women. The bleatings of Prime Minister David Cameron about the criminal classes who are now raging come across as toothless and amount to “next time I’m going to be very cross with you.”
Britain seems to have given up its sovereignty to the yobs and to the politically protected minorities who are being allowed to riot and loot. Perhaps if police in Britain were given license to shoot looters there would be no more of it? Of course there wouldn’t, except the individual officers would likely be prosecuted for murder by the idiots in charge of the British asylum.