In Scotland, where a girl defended herself and her sister by brandishing a knife and an axe against an invader and his wife (and others), got chastised by the judge for daring to do so rather than lying back and taking one (or two or three) in service to diversity.
After the young girl presented her testimony, Sheriff Tim Niven-Smith — the judge presiding over the trial — told her she shouldn’t have been carrying weapons in the first place.
“There is no such thing as a defensive weapon; there are only offensive weapons,” he added.
As Tom Knighton, the author of the article points out:
The truth is that weapons are weapons. They’re neutral. They’re offensive weapons if used offensively, but defensive weapons if used defensively. While I get that a lot of people are always going to be uncomfortable with children running around with weapons, the truth of the matter is that if the UK actually looked out for the kids instead of trying to hide grooming gangs, the kids might feel safe enough to not walk around like they’re getting ready for an adventure in a real-life Dungeons & Dragons setting than a park in the UK.
People who defend themselves by using a firearm are excoriated by the left ‘is your property worth someone’s life?’ And the, IMO, correct answer is: ‘well, they seemed to think so.’
It is never in any government’s best interest to have an engaged, armed populace. Because they are harder to control. Government wants a disarmed citizenry that relies on government and not their own resources.
Source: Bearing Arms, ht: B.
Midwest Chick's Place 
Leave a Reply