The link between gun control and feminism

Dear Ivor: Delivered as promised! George

I love weapons and shooting - I' ve fired tens of thousands of rounds at taxpayers expense from all calibres of weapons. Ball. Armour -piercing. Tracer. Rockets. Grenades.Mortars. When you pick up a rifle or machine gun, you pick up power. Raw, brutal power. You feel it coursing through you from the butt to the muzzle. If you are well-trained and familiar with the weapon, you get a don't-fuck-with-me assurance when you heft it into your shoulder. This wears off somewhat after you have carried and cared for it through swamp and over mountain for weeks, when you have to eat sleep and shit with it no more than arms reach away from you every minute of the day. But it's still there.

That's one of the reasons I have not had possession of a gun of any sort for twenty years - that sort of power is best accompanied by a framework of institutional discipline and self- discipline.

There is no doubt that a world without guns would be a better place - guns allow you to kill at a distance, or at least rifles and long-barrelled machine guns do, which means that it is easier to be feel detached from your enemy or victim and his suffering. 

I like living in a society where even the police are not routinely armed. 

Much is made of the amount of gun crime and gun deaths in the US, and it is difficult to make a defence against gun control in the US but I am going to do just that. What you might argue,has this to do with the UKMM and our fight against feminism? It is not surprising that much of the pressure for gun control in the US comes from feminists. They have succeeded in de-balling the majority of male Americans, now they want to remove what sadly many Americans see as their last touchstone with their masculinity, the right to bear arms. Some would deride this as inadequacy, phallic symbolism, etc. probably with a some degree of accuracy. 

Obviously many Americans see the gun as a symbol of their masculinity, and of course if there is one thing that feminists love, it is attacking masculinity, and making men unhappy or insecure. Before we sneer at those immature Americans, we must understand why it is such a potent symbol to them. 

I am going to make what may be a strange postulation, that if gun control was effectively introduced, it would be worse for America, and in particular for American women.

The right to bear arms,and it's importance in understanding the American psyche, goes back to the American revolution when those insolent colonists thought they would fare better without us.

The colonists felt oppressed and victims of injustice from an authority (The King) which they had not voted for or had any control over. (sound familiar?) History proves that (with the honourable exception of Ghandi) the traditional remedy for those who are unjustly oppressed and powerless or feel oppressed and powerless, is violence.

The American colonists were no Ghandis - they would have been hung like dogs if they were.

The rose up against the British. They lived in the forests, and were hunted like dogs by British, Indians and Hessian mercenaries. They fought a tough, irregular war and succeeding in getting us out because they all owned guns, which they could turn against their oppressors. ( Before any Yanks reading this get uppity, remember many of the colonists were British, and we were a little preoccupied with a Froggie

upstart called Napoleon at the time!).

The Founding Fathers who wrote the constitution realised that if free men have the guns, the state cannot oppress the majority against their will. This is taught in American schools, and it is deeply imbedded in the pysche of many US men. It results in the attitude " my gun is the symbol of freedom,and the freedom of those I love and care for, those I am bound in honour as a man to protect as my forefathers so bound".

No wonder it is a symbol of their masculinity.

 The first thing the British (English and Lowland Scots) did after the Highlanders were defeated at Culloden was to take away the right to bear arms, punishable by death. Emasculation and political impotence. German Geordie did as he wished-for the men could not defend their way of life Many left, or were cleared off the land, and the Highlands were depopulated. The sword was the equivalent of the American's gun today, which the state is trying to remove by stealth instead of force, but the result will be the same. 

As stated earlier, violence is the resort of the powerless. American men have had their families, jobs and self-respect taken away from them with scarcely a murmur.

Result? Single mother "families" running at 90% in the ghettos, astronomical crime rates, a rootless, ungrounded society coming unglued.

The gun violence is a direct consequence of US men having little power. Male -on-female domestic violence is usually the result of a man realising how powerless he is against a woman who wants to take his children,his home, his job or his self-respect away from him (or all of these) . 

Try to take away the last symbol of his constantly challenged, constantly belittled masculinity and he will bite you,and hard. Even if the guns were successfully taken from him, these now completely emasculated men would be less secure, and violence agaist women would rise.

For proof of this, we must return to Europe, to a country that has fought no wars in over 200 years, to Switzerland. Switzerland was the last country in the developed world to enfranchise women, indeed in one Canton there were serious political discussion to remove thr right to vote from women. It is in the happy state of non-membership of the United States of Europe ,so it can give two fingers to the feminist crap that gushes out of Brussels and Strasbourg.

It has fought no wars for one major and little appreciated reason - it is the most war prepared nation in Europe, bar none. All it lacks is combat experience. The Swiss were one of the most warlike and mercenary nations in Europe,(that's why  Popes have had a Swiss Guard to protect them for centuries.) They have never ceased to be prepared for war. Hitler did not invade them because it would have been too expensive in men committed. All  physically fit Swiss men have to serve 4 months in the Armed Forces at 18, then do one month's full time training per annum until aged 35, after which they must muster once a year with their fully automatic assault rifle, uniform and military equipment until they're 55 years old.

Where do all these Swiss men keep these highly lethal fully automatic assualt rifles (hold the trigger down to loose off a full magazine of 30 rounds)? Smewhere where they can get to it immediately if there is a national emergency.

Their homes.

A mad recipe for frequent bloodbaths?

No.

 Swiss crime rates in all categories are less than any other Western nation (except perhaps white-collar crime). Violence, domestic or otherwise, is a fraction of the United States', the second country in the world to enfranchise women, and the one whose politicians and courts have given enormous power over men to women.

When will society realise that the problem of male initiated domestic violence will not be reduced by taking power and respect away from men? It will be reduced when they take it back, when older men have mentored them in the responsibilities and obligations of power.

George McAuley 26nov99