UK Visits US Gun Passion

Jan Morgan

About the author: Jan is a nationally recognized 2nd Amendment Advocate/Speaker/ NRA Certified Firearms Instructor/ Associated Press Award winning investigative journalist/ Owner/Editor JanMorganMedia.com, Sr. Editor/Patriot Update/ Independent Constitutional Conservative. She is closely aligned with the Republican/ ... [read 's FULL BIO]


Not long ago, I was approached by a man and woman from the UK who wanted some training and the chance to shoot guns. They were in the United States on vacation and one of the items on their vacation list was to find a certified instructor and have the once in a lifetime chance to “experience what it’s like to be American for a few hours with the legal right to shoot rifles and guns.”

They told me that in the UK, they could not own guns and they really did not understand this “passion” Americans had for firearms and shooting since, (in their words) “guns are dangerous tools of violence and kill people.”

Wow… Those of you who know me, know how well that statement went over. πŸ™‚
I quickly corrected them by telling them that actually, “Guns save lives.” In fact, 2.5 million times last year, law abiding citizens in this country used guns in self defense situations and saved lives… and… that 90 million gun owners in America with over 300 million guns, killed no one last year.. I stressed that gun ownership by law abiding citizens actually decreases crime and mentioned that a study published in the Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy discovered that nations that have more guns tend to have less crime.

I rounded out that little lesson by putting a loaded gun on the range counter in front of them and explained to them that this gun can’t DO ANYTHING WITHOUT THE ASSISTANCE OF a human being handling it.
Point of that lesson: People…. not guns… are killers and people who want to kill can use any number of objects to accomplish their mission.

Of all the instructors in this country for this couple to select for their training, John and Susan (not their real names) had no idea that, in addition to being an NRA and State Certified Instructor, I am probably one of the most outspoken of gun rights advocates/activitists in this country and even further right than the NRA on the issue of Gun Control Laws. ( I believe the 2nd Amendment stands alone. I do not support ANY FORMS of infringement including background checks, carry permits, or the government determining who is and is not fit medically to own a gun.)

Of course, after a day of firearms training and shooting a variety of guns and rifles, the two admitted they had a great time and both became pretty good shooters… however, after training, one of them made the comment that “as wonderful as it is that Americans have the right to own guns, this sort of liberty would not work in the UK and it’s best that people in their country remain unarmed.”

I couldn’t reisist that bait.

I bit… and began a conversation with the two of them with the intention of helping them to see that in America, the 2nd Amendment is not about guns. It is about the choice between dependence and independence…
This opened the door for a discussion that I hope, opened their eyes and minds to the real meaning behind this “passion” as they described it, that Americans have for defending the 2nd Amendment.

John said that in the UK, there was very little gun crime since “the gun ban”. However, when pressed on the issue, he admitted that criminals still had guns… only law abiding citizens did not have them, but, he said, in the UK, if you are approached by an assailant, all you have to do is simply GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT and they will usually go away without killing anyone.

I asked him what he would do if the assailant wanted his wife… then what? Are you going to stand by and watch him rape and brutalize your wife, your daughter and do nothing? He was silent for a moment…. his expression changed and I could tell he had never even considered the possibilty that HIS family could be victimized before his eyes.

After careful consideration, he said, “well, even if I had a gun, in that situation, I’m not sure I could have the heart to actually shoot someone.”
I remember thinking, “gee, I’m glad I’m not his wife or daughter.”

His wife, Susan, spoke up and said, I would shoot an assailant who was physically assaulting anyone in my family.
I remember thinking, “gee, good thing someone in that family has a set.” (she was a better shooter anyway)

John said, violent crime doesn’t really happen “that much” in the UK anymore. I said, in other words, crime pays in the UK because criminals have a defenseless population of next victims.

I then asked him how long does he think it will be before the criminal element takes control of the UK and how will the law abiding citizens stop it? After all, in the 20th century, 170 million people have been annihilated by their own governments AFTER BEING DISARMED. History has proven that it is only a matter of time before the bad guys with guns take over and control the good guys without guns.
So… you understand now, why Americans are so passionate about being armed… It is not and has never been about “guns”… It is about LIBERTY… because with the bad guys, it is not and has never been about guns… it is about “control”

Once again…. silence… deep thought…
then…. it was.. “Honey, what do you think about moving to the U.S.?”

SIDE NOTE: JUST FOR THE RECORD: Regardless of what this UK citizen claims, here are some truths about what has happened there as since the gun ban.

1) Despite the very strict ban on guns in the UK, the overall rate of violent crime in the UK is about 4 times higher than it is in the United States. In one recent year, there were 2,034 violent crimes per 100,000 people in the UK. In the United States, there were only 466 violent crimes per 100,000 people during that same year. Do we really want to be more like the UK?

2) The UK has approximately 125 percent more rape victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

3) The UK has approximately 133 percent more assault victims per 100,000 people each year than the United States does.

4) The UK has the fourth highest burglary rate in the EU.

5) The UK has the second highest overall crime rate in the EU.

6) The nine European nations with the lowest rate of gun ownership rate have a combined murder rate that is three times greater than the nine European nation with the highest rate of gun ownership.

Posting Policy
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.
  • Dee Dunbar

    Don’t forget the out of control sharia and muzzie pop.

    • Dee… you are sooo right… and that’s another story in itself..

  • Teresa Yeisley


    • thanks so much for the kind words of encouragement Teresa!

    • ADRoberts

      Now if you could just find a way to FORCE every American TO HAVE THIS ARTICLE read to them. Some way of getting this information out to people who ONLY listen to the LSM and communist party info.
      But there seems to be about 39% who simply will NOT admit that their black marxist, muslim president can do anything that should be QUESTIONED.
      Pray, people; Then start the —–
      CHRISTIAN TEA PARTY at your location.
      ………..1. Republicans are a sham. They wll cave again in February.
      …………2. Tea Partiers will NEVER leave the Repubs. They are afraid of the Perot effect.
      …………3. Tea Partiers will NEVER address social issues and attract those who support A. The unborn. B. Gun Owners C. Hetersexuals D. Prosecuting those who break the law. E. Removal of radical judges who torpedo the Constitution.
      They just will NOT leave their ONE ISSUE finances.
      CHRISTIAN TEA PARTY. All conservaives, (withing reason) welcome.

  • Horseluck Mac

    Pathetic. A list of cherry-picked statements which manipulate the avaliable data.

    Nothing should obscure the fact that the US has a gun crime rate which 97 per cent higher per capita than in the UK. WHY? Because there are so many guns..

    2010 Gun deaths per 100,000 US = 10.3, UK = 0.2
    Police killed in country by guns in 2010 US =61, UK = 0
    Police killed total in 2012 US = 177, UK=0…

    It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that if you have a lot of people with a lots of machines capable of killing people that the death rate is going to go up, does it?

    • IslandDiving

      Who’s cherry picking data? hahaha…

    • Logic Lover

      Talk about cherry picking… wow. No wonder I’m the only one even bothering to lend credence to that comment. As if only a gun can kill. Jan already defeated your ill-conceived point, as does the news that we constantly read. Can’t help but recall the recent, bloody Islamist massacre in the UK’s streets that “special armed police” had to respond to (albeit far too late to save anyone’s life). I’m sure that’s not going to be a continuing trend or anything, though…

      • sc

        you are right guns are not the only weapon that can be used to kill, in fact there are more people killed by someone using a KNIFE, if you doubt it check out the F.B.I. files, maybe we need to start registering you kitchen steak knife and make sure that everyone who has one gets a knife permit before they can use it.

    • Guest

      Horseluck Mac is a troll. Notice he even capitalized Gun in the 2010 statistic of gun deaths. He knows dead is dead no matter what type machine is used to murder you. He is only trying to get a rise out of you. He used the term cherry picked when he clearly cherry picked ignoring the first statistic Jan posted. Ignore him he will go away. Quit feeding the trolls

      • We don’t respond to trolls here.. I usually just delete their comments. πŸ™‚

        • Curtis

          I invoke Godwin’s Law. You lose, James.

        • Steven

          The fact your comment was 5 days old when I read it is irrefutable proof it is not true.

    • Becky

      Pathetic. You forgot to include the rate of violent crimes overall. Sure, where there are fewer guns there will be less gun violence. And the gun violence committed will be criminals who still have their guns perpetrating it against a defenseless population of law abiding citizens who gave up their guns because of the laws.

      You also forgot to mention that the gun violence in America is committed by criminals who own guns illegally. But these little facts mean nothing to people like you.

      Molon Labe, dufus.

      • thanks Beck… the stats are on our side… Horseluck is a troll

    • Curtis

      I’m reasonably sure Horseluck is including suicide in his gun death statistics, as if they would not find another way to dispose of themselves if they hadn’t had a gun. And his gun death statistics will include legitimate and exonerated self defense incidents.

      And in deciding to throw police out there, I will, for the record, state that almost 90% of the police out there are proponents of the 2nd Amendment, and believe in a citizen’s right to be armed. Thanks, Horseluck, but you don’t speak for police.

      • Curtis.. Horseluck is making up his stats…

        • Curtis

          Perhaps he is, or perhaps he is just parroting stats given to him by some leftwing site. I’ve seen their lingo before. They include suicide and self defense under one large “gun violence” umbrella, as if managing to eliminate guns from society will somehow eliminate all social ills. Ironically, he blames cherry picking on opponent.

          True story, Jan. I’m a police officer in Houston, TX. I was sitting down in a local eatery having lunch. Just got my food. Been there about 15 minutes. A lady comes up to me and tells me “I just want you to know you ruined my lunch.” “I did?” “Yes, you sitting there with your gun, it made me so nervous, it ruined my lunch.” “Maam, you see my patch here on my shoulder says ‘police’. You know, I’m one of the good guys?” “I know, but I still don’t like being around them, and I couldn’t eat with you sitting there.”

          My final response was to laugh at her, and say “Lady, I’m not going to patronize your irrational fear.”

          Horseluck… You have irrational fear. Bottom line. Don’t expect reasonable, law abiding Americans to patronize it.

          • James Hall

            You know Curtis you are 8x more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist? I don’t think she has an irrational fear at all.


          • James Hall

            “Lady, I’m not going to patronize your irrational fear.”

            You are 8x more likely to be killed by a police officer than a terrorist. Her fear is not irrational. You seem rather smug as well about you being the “good guys”, but completely out of touch.

            I mean why would this woman be afraid of an individual who is part of a group responsible for killing 8x as many people as terrorist have Americans. I mean why would she fear for her life? Its not like cops kill innocent people, right?

            Wrong. It happens everyday in this country. WAKE UP GUY.

          • Curtis

            I’m curious, James, how will you accomplish your goal of total disarmament, when the citizens who have arms will not relinquish them?

            Will you expect the police to go get them?

            And when citizens object, and fight back, how will that skew your police statistics?

            It’s a bit of irony that you will rely on those who you despise to accomplish your goal of disarming those same people who you despise.

            Want in on a dirty little conservative secret? We will NOT turn arms on our own citizens to accomplish your anti-2A goal. I will quit my post first. Then if you want it, come and get it.

          • Curtis

            “Is it possible Im a liberal who can think for himself”

            No. That is an oxymoron.

            And as for why I didn’t discuss your other points, I do not argue dubious and gerrymandered statistics with liberals. It’s a fallacious argument, and stands as such to anyone with half a brain.

            You see, I could come back with deaths by car accidents, and all those other retread arguments, but will I change your mind? Of course not. You will just shout louder, and be more accusatory, and more obnoxious. And you will demonstrate why Jan chooses to delete you, which I can find no fault with, because you don’t really want debate, you and yours just shout a lot.

          • “We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.”

            Hey thanks for having a polite discussion with me! I appreciate especially how you haven’t tried insulting me or personal attacks. You are a true professional.


          • sc

            well the next time your in trouble and need help just call your local terrorist, i don’t know if they have a 911 number or not but you can try.

          • Pretty sure I can protect myself. Never needed em before, doubt I will ever need them in the future. I’m not one of the sheeple who can’t protect themselves or their property.

        • Steven

          Even if his stats were real, I am willing to BET he would include CRIMINALS being killed in self defense in the same category as murder.

    • Ray Sykes

      Now include those who were killed by crow bars, and knives, and other weapons of murder!

    • atsme

      It’s not because there are so many guns. It’s because we have a higher ratio of CRIMINALS, and a much larger population which allows for that higher ratio.
      295,734,134 – US
      60,441,457 – England
      It’s like comparing the contents of a 5 gal. bucket to a 50 gal. drum. Use some common sense people!!

  • ShallNotBeInfringed

    Jan, are there any countries where Americans legally may travel with their own guns? E.g. When traveling state to state here, there are a slew of laws to learn about transport, types of possession, and carry reciprocity. Is there a resource that shows which countries Americans can transport, possess, and carry?

    • I don’t know about other countries… I refuse to travel outside the United States..
      Every state here is different… Unfortunately, if you want to be “legal” about carrying while traveling, it is your responsibility to check with the states you are traveling through or to to find out their specific laws regarding carry thru their state while traveling.

      • Jeff Brodhead

        AND as we have seen, even the “laws” of the States you enter, mean little to nothing, when it comes to firearms. Progressive insanity!

  • Steve Foreman

    Great article, love it.

  • EmEm

    THIS is why I follow you. Even in these dark days, you’ve reminded me why I am so proud to be an American.

  • patriotflllc

    Great job, Jan! Logic, and facts, can be SO disarming! πŸ™‚

  • Legatus legionis

    Should there be a next time, ask them about the Sharia only zones in England. These are Islamic area that infidels dare not enter. Ask them about Muslims (they call them Asians) marrying children. Ask them to explain why it is that British common law does not apply to Muslims. Ask them why the cops look the other way as Muslims groom little girls for sex and prostitution. Finally, ask them their position on the English Defense League. Tell them to never come back to America If they besmirch the integrity of the EDL.

  • maddaddyssa

    The Euroweenies have lost their most basic understanding of the concept of self-defense.

  • Law Abiding Citizen


  • Law Abiding Citizen

    “Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse”

    reasonable discourse = troll. Wow.

  • Political Liars

    Excellent article! Articulated well and great statistics in the end of the article. Great for arguing with idiots like Piers Morgan, πŸ™‚

    • Jeff Brodhead

      LOL! That Piers Morgan… What a joke!

  • Jeff Brodhead

    The 2nd Amendment stands alone, because the 10th Amendment says so!

    • Steven

      Actually, the 10th amendment is irrelevant to the 2nd amendment. I would even argue that the 2nd OVERRIDES the 10th in the sense they 10th amendment reserves powers NOT mentioned to the states. The 2nd amendment prohibits ALL levels of government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. It says “shall not be infringed”, not ‘shall not be infringed by X. For comparison, the 1st amendment states that CONGRESS shall make no law… As such it limited its own application to acts of Congress. By NOT including similar language, the SAME first Congress that wrote both amendments, prohibited ANYONE from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.

      • Jeff Brodhead

        Thought that is what I said, Steven. 10A said that if EVERYTHING BEFORE IT did not delegate a power, then “or the People.” have the final word.

        People is both plural and singular and the singular has the final word. Isn’t that the point of our Constitutional Republic? 99.999999% do not have the authority to strip the 1 of a single right, outside the Constitution(s). Any additions (amendments) to the Constitution(s) are to add/clarify protect of the rights of the People, not to allow government, or other People to strip one People of a right. (That is how we need to rescind current (Progressive) “amendments”.

        BTW: enjoying http://www.theresistanceradio.com/ right now.

        • Steven

          I can’t be sure what you meant, but that ISN’T what you said. What you said here is NOT correct. The ENTIRE Constitution IS a delegation of specified powers. That FACT is essential to understanding the United States government ONLY has those powers delegated. In any case, the people DO NOT have the final say on rights. The rights exist and the people CAN’T take them away.

          People is ALWAYS plural. The singular is PERSON, and the Constitution uses that term where it applies. NOTHING in the Constitution ADDS, or CAN add to the RIGHTS of anyone. The very structure of the Constitution and the bill of rights makes it clear that RIGHTS preexist government in ANY form.

          Note: I think we agree on the rights in question, but your ‘logic’ is severely flawed.

          • Jeff Brodhead

            Thanks Steven. I don’t know where my head was at the time.

            Went back and re-read the definitions of people and person, in the 1828 Websters. I misunderstood an example of the use of the word “people” (guess that make me a candidate for sCOTUS? πŸ™‚

            One thing you pointed out… was typed “add/clarify PROTECTIONS of the rights of the People…”
            (Sorry, I didn’t catch that typo – I think PROTECTIONS affects the meaning significantly.)

            I’m trying to study and absorb much info these days. One favorite site is http://1215.org (see: http://1215.org/lawnotes/lawnotes/pvc.htm) I am finding it difficult to put into words, the things I want to say, when I know that 98% of Americans don’t want to listen to the truth.

            America (the real America) is in a crap hole and all we need to do is step out – but we can’t pull People (or a Person) out with us. Another site is http://www.dirtyunclesam.com

      • sc

        while i would agree with you it seems that all the states have in one way or another have “infringed” on our right to keep and bear arms, there are over 22000 laws now on the books and there are more waiting in the dark corners with those who were elected to protect us. so what is next?

  • Brett Maternowski

    Love the article. Could I have sources for your info on U.K violence. I only ask because I want to repost on a site that has people from both sides of the table. Sources go a long way.

  • Marauder

    The Second Amendment is really all about one principle: Defense against ALL enemies foreign and domestic, and it works very well, as evidenced by the constant carping from both the gun control freaks in this country and the United Nations.

  • Corry

    Very nice. Glad to see some open minded people actually gave it a shot (no pun intended) rather than rant and rave about it, after you explained it to them. There IS a difference between ignorance and stupidity.

  • Thomas Conte

    I have seen so many post from persons on the left, where they try to confirm their correctness and what they believe others should follow based upon a study of the statistics of gun related deaths in the US vs. UK, It does not matter to me what statistic you quote, it is irrelevant to me, I am a statistic of ONE, I will always choose to defend my family, myself, my country and the Constitution of the United States of America, I will not go silently into the night, and even if you managed to take everything I own in this world away from me the cost to you would still outweigh the reward, for even then I will not submit, not until you take my life will I stop, I will be relentless. I will not be a helpless victim, regardless of the laws or opinions of anyone else. I was not born under the sign of the sheep! I was born a Lion and I will walk as such. ΞœΞŸΞ›Ξ©Ξ ΛΑΒΕ!

  • Ann Bassett-Wrong

    Thank you for the article. This is a further affirmation of John Lott’s detailed analysis in “More Guns, Less Crime”. Ann Magdalene. As an aside, thank God he is not my partner.

  • Larry B

    Should have asked what they were going to do with just a few more Sharia-enforcing people around. That soldier that got his head cut off a few weeks go would have liked a Glock, I think.

  • Larry B

    I wasn’t going to say anything, but, yeah…

  • Curtis

    If you represent the Gold Wind Riders Association FB, you could remove it yourself.


    BTW, get a Harley.

    • VT Patriot

      Curtis, 2 of my kids have Harleys, but me??? I ride a Ducati.

  • Phaenius

    Perhaps you should have told that UK pair, “would you like the attention of a fellow British Man concerning Self Defense?” This is John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government the best American founder tested rule of thumb I have come across:

    18. This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than by the use of force, so to get him in his power as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose that he who would take away my liberty would not, when he had me in his power, take away everything else. And, therefore, it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me- i.e., kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

    19. And here we have the plain difference between the state of Nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant as a state of peace, goodwill, mutual assistance, and preservation; and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction are one from another. Men living together according to reason without a common superior on earth, with authority to judge between them, is properly the state of Nature. But force, or a declared design of force upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war; and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, though he be in society and a fellow-subject. Thus, a thief whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat, because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which if lost is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority puts all men in a state of Nature; force without right upon a manβ€²s person makes a state of war both where there is, and is not, a common judge.

  • Phaenius

    Oh by the way, did I say you really did good. I also had an opportunity to deal with a couple from England, and when they went home, they had a picture of them holding ALL SORTS of firearms I had around the house, almost looking like hill billies…in West Texas (standing on an ant mound).

    There are two sides, I have given John Locke’s version for KILLING a thief, but there are other conditions that forbid me to take a man’s life to return my possessions and this is another great rule of thumb that could have been to balance the comment I suggested earlier for you to tell the UK couple. This is found in John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government, the one that Jefferson nearly took whole cloth into his Declaration draft:

    207. Thirdly. Supposing a government wherein the person of the chief magistrate is not thus sacred, yet this doctrine of the lawfulness of resisting all unlawful exercises of his power will not, upon every slight occasion, endanger him or embroil the government; for where the injured party may be relieved and his damages repaired by appeal to the law, there can be no pretence for force, which is only to be used where a man is intercepted from appealing to the law. For nothing is to be accounted hostile force but where it leaves not the remedy of such an appeal. and it is such force alone that puts him that uses it into a state of war, and makes it lawful to resist him. A man with a sword in his hand demands my purse on the highway, when perhaps I have not 12d. in my pocket. This man I may lawfully kill. To another I deliver L100 to hold only whilst I alight, which he refuses to restore me when I am got up again, but draws his sword to defend the possession of it by force. I endeavour to retake it. The mischief this man does me is a hundred, or possibly a thousand times more than the other perhaps intended me (whom I killed before he really did me any); and yet I might lawfully kill the one and cannot so much as hurt the other lawfully. The reason whereof is plain; because the one using force which threatened my life, I could not have time to appeal to the law to secure it, and when it was gone it was too late to appeal. The law could not restore life to my dead carcass. The loss was irreparable; which to prevent the law of Nature gave me a right to destroy him who had put himself into a state of war with me and threatened my destruction. But in the other case, my life not being in danger, I might have the benefit of appealing to the law, and have reparation for my L100 that way.

    • sc

      all that is fine except that your going to have to hire some ambulance chaser to appear in court for you and when it’s all settled he will take the lion’s share as a fee. so you still are going to be short of what you originally had.

      • Phaenius

        You forgot the part that it was probably foolish to not check out the character of the bud that held your purse before you delivered it to him, so there may be a bit of justice in being a bit foolish with your belongings, but you will not have this guy’s kin suing you because, “He never was a violent or deceitful child (brother, neighbor, student or etc.) and I have never seen poor doofus do anything deserving that unkind cut you slashed him with for such a possible minor infraction of your rights….sob.” But this is the reason for government in the first place to settle squabbles so not every altercation has to go to blows. What is that statement about possession is 99 percent of the law? What would you think would have happened if a Police officer was actually near by and came upon YOU with a weapon approaching a man with a bag of money in his hand using a weapon to defend that which HE holds in his hands?

  • LiuD

    I totally agree with Teresa, your article seriously rocks! I am among defenders of the 2nd A in Rhode Island and we’ve developed deensive statics too. To the point you’ve so eloquently made to your UK friends, we’ve made graphical pushback messages I have on my blog. Here’s the link: http://dctliu.wordpress.com/2013/02/13/defending-the-2nd-amendment/

  • Cameron Triplett Sr

    You go, girl!! Set’em straight.

  • Sunshine Kid

    I, like you, am far to the right of the NRA stance. I believe that the original intent of the Second Amendment was that if you had a ships cannon or field artillery, it was YOURS, and you could use it to defend your home, your family, and your community – if not in the defense of your country. By inference and extrapolation, that means if you had your own tank, fighter aircraft or machine gun, you should be allowed to keep them, but no, the government is far too concerned about your use of those weapons to allow you to be so irresponsibly prepared to defend yourself.

  • Steven

    I can’t see the page you mention, but I STRONGLY suspect the article ISN’T on the page per se. FACEBOOK shows ‘suggested’ articles on EVERY Facebook page. The individual pages are selected based on the page owner’s activity. I am nearly certain the author of the article had NOTHING to do with the article appearing, and I am 100% certain the ACTUAL page owner, which I doubt you are, can BLOCK content from anyone they wish, aside from Facebook.

  • Patriot47

    Only criminals want their potential victims unarmed.

  • brs02

    Inconvenient truth….?