49 Comments

A depressing topic, beautifully communicated.

Expand full comment

Many of those that claim that he is a 'threat to democracy' have implied or overtly called for his 'assassination.' Assassination is not democracy, it is the opposite of it. Funny how that is. Yet so many believe that it is not only justified, but the solution to their problems. If someone had succeeded, I guess mayhem and chaos would then ensue. Would that be their democracy then? I guess we're in trouble now, because if this happens again, I guess that's all it would take, because many of those above I mentioned are expecting it.

Expand full comment

I guess I mistakenly took that initial comment as sarcasm. (And it turned into a full on debate on Sarah's substack.). I turn off the internet for a few days and all hell breaks loose...

"Everybody else is doing it" isn't an admirable philosophy.

America. Not the place subjugated by monarchy, not the place ruled by a king or a queen, or royal families and whose Constitution is built on the idea of protecting our rights FROM the government. The Constitution doesn't grant rights. It does not give rights. It does not bestow rights. We have rights, whether there is a Constitution or not. It recognizes certain rights that shall be protected as law. One of those rights is number two. The reason in 1776 is because ENGLISH troops were occupying houses and taking over towns. The English government is notorious in its history for declaring things like hunting for food is punishable by the king's men. Cutting off men's fingers so they cannot pull a bowstring to operate bow & arrow as weapons. And yes, making it illegal to carry weapons. The purpose for the appearance in the Constitution of a 'right to bear arms' is for the common man to defend himself. Tyranny of the sort in 1776 was in the streets. Troops marching down the streets, collecting weapons, harassing the public, and making demands on them, restrictions, and false mandates. It was considered the right to defend against this kind of tyranny. There is a whole philosophy there about being secure in your property, your possessions, your person from intrusion. The local law enforcement (be it English or American) cannot just declare jus primae noctis because it's 'modern' or because of any ridiculous new argument. People have rights, and people have rights against tyranny. Everyone. They have a right to hunt for food, and fight bandits. To defend their families from people who come to steal their kids, break in to their homes, rape their wives and steal things, be they resellable goods or private papers proving something...

That's the way it is in America. It's part of the very foundation of how we got here. 1776. Independence from English Rule. We're not part of the English government. The English may have chosen a path of following kings and unelected rulers, we Americans did not. I see no reason to change that now. Nor in the future.

We should probably ban swimming pools. Children drown in them all the time. We should probably ban cars. People are killed them every single day. We should probably ban Tylenol, Aspirin, corn syrup, sugar and everything and everything else that might be a threat to human life. The delusion that if you 'take the guns away there will be no more shootings' is one of the most laughable delusions there is. It's like people saying "HE CAN'T DO THAT! THAT'S ILLEGAL!"

Oh yeah? People commit crimes all the time all day long. Law does not stop them. It might stop me, or you or those on this substack, but millions of people are not stopped by any law. When that occurs, you still have rights. Even when there is no cops around, you have rights. Who protects them then?

Expand full comment

You could always try banning guns like most civilised nations

Expand full comment
Jul 16Liked by Sarah Cain

From one who has no idea what that would mean, oh yes, the criminals would turn in their guns and would strive to have a non hostile point of view from now on.

Expand full comment

They have had gun amnesties here and some people do turn them in. Knife crime is a bigger problem here but giving everyone knives isn't really going to help

Expand full comment
author

The people who turn the guns in aren't the people who would have used them to harm innocents. Disarmament therefore disarms the law-abiding, and leaves them at the mercy of aggressors. And as you stated, even if you could remove most guns from the streets, criminals just switch to knives, acid, etc. -- and the innocent have nothing with which to exercise their God-given right to defend themselves.

Expand full comment

I don't think God gave us guns. The rule of law defends us, not people acting as judge, jury and executioner. Also no one is innocent, would you suggest that everyone was punished for every wrong they've thought of doing. Including yourself.

Expand full comment
Jul 18Liked by Sarah Cain

You missed her point. Criminals don't follow the law. Law abiding people are the only ones hurt by gun laws. So it's pointless to ban guns. Also "civilized nations" laughable. Australia is a full on tyranny as is the UK & it's because the citizens there can't stop their gov't.

Expand full comment
Jul 23·edited Jul 23

Somewhere in Luke 11 perhaps, The Strongman fully armed guards his house and no man takes away his goods. But when one stronger than he overcomes him and takes his arms, he takes his goods and whatever else he wants. Something like that - so yes God gave us intelligence and ability to create ways the physically weaker or not can defend themselves against the stronger or more numerous and actually thereby keep the peace. It's called self-defense A Chorlton. And it's why you don't live under the Third Reich at least at present.

Expand full comment

Here in the US, most gun crimes are committed in places with the most stringent gun laws. Weapons get smuggled right through our border anyway as well. So a ban doesn't stop gun runners or their clients from obtaining them & using them. An armed society is a polite society. Better to have it & not need it than need it & not have it. They are just a tool. The equalize imbalances between attackers & victims & most gun purchases in the last few years were by women.

Expand full comment

That only leaves the guns in the possession of the criminals. New Zealand is a good example.

Expand full comment

True but surely you end up with a race to bottom. Gun related crime is far lower in the uk

Expand full comment

To Sarah's excellent comment below. Adrian, gun crime was lower in the Countries you site before gun bans - in fact all crime was. Factor that in. It destroys your argument. You're forgetting (or maybe you fully realize) most gun crime in America is being pushed and allowed by left wing elements, those with elitist law enforcement agendas, and entrenched bureaucrats in the government who only want more power by seeking to undermine the People's fundamental natural and God given rights to our own people and property by removing our ability to defend ourselves.

Expand full comment

Who cares if it's gun related? If someone dies by a blunt instrument or a gun, it's the same outcome. You can't legislate morality.

Expand full comment

Governments do legislate morality all the time. Abortion, purgery, freedom of speech, theft, public honesty and of course allowing or not allowing guns

Expand full comment
author

Murder is the immoral act, not guns. You're confusing method with action. Guns are also an equalizer to allow the weak to protect themselves from the strong, which is a moral good. Hence action versus method. Also, gun crime was far lower in the UK before they were banned; there's a cultural distinction. The vast majority of gun crime in America is gang related.

Expand full comment
Jul 16·edited Jul 16

Oh, my God. With nothing to essentially protect us, if just by the fact it is known the guns exist, from the abject dangerous corruption that no government in history feeling its power has not in varying degrees posed to its "subjects"? Good Lord, what would the current regime be further imposing right now without the 2nd Amendment? As for other "civilized nations," do any even remotely have the level and depth of freedoms that we do? I wonder why not?

Expand full comment

Good reply Michael. We would be like all other countries of the recent past that were disarmed by fascist governments. American democracy is a fake front held up to fool all of the people all of the time. The American Republic died with the 16th and 17th Amendments. Its descent into Popular democracy has been to destroy Constitution Rights and freedom. We have been made tax slaves to an evil empire, and this empire will do anything to keeps us in chains.

Expand full comment

Yes they do have greater freedoms and have done for hundreds of years longer than the USA

Expand full comment

Can you name any? The US has freedoms no other country has. That's how much more we have freedom if we're going by strictly what is allowed. On different levels, no one is free anywhere due to debt slavery imposed by private central banks & their charging of interest that can never be repaid. Making everyone a debt slave. But nonetheless you will not name a disarmed country with more freedom than the US. Gun ownership itself is a freedom. God given is irrelevant. It is nature to survive. Most who die by guns are violent aggressors not innocent victims.

Expand full comment

Correct me if I am wrong. I am of the opinion that one crime that the USA does not have is breaking into houses, because of guns and I would suspect the Sheriff's Department would congratulate that person who dealt with the problem.

Expand full comment

We do have house breaking in the UK but our courts follow the principle of reasonable force. Let the punishment fit the crime, shooting somebody doesn't seem proportionate to me

Expand full comment

Tell that to the Americans.

Expand full comment

We do still have home invasions with various intent. What's usually ignored in the conversation is that defensive uses of guns actually do stop crimes, usually without a shot fired.

The Justice Dept. has the lowest estimate for defensive uses at about 100,000 times per year. Seventeen other studies have an average closer to 2M times per year. The methods for arriving at those numbers vary, but even in the middle range, defensive use looks to be more common than criminal use.

I'm not surprised by that. The American concept is that we have a natural right to self defense, from all sources of violence, and that citizen's are the first one responsible for their safety.

It's not that we "love" guns. It's that we love those around us and want to be ready to respond to an immediate and dire threat.

We have way too much crime. Agreed. That's a more complicated thing than just the tool that's used to commit the crime. The FBI says guns are used in only 7.9% of violent crime.

Clearly there's a deeper issue at play when you consider the 92.1% left.

Expand full comment

Last I checked it was 800,000 defensive uses of firearms per year on average. Of course it does vary a lot year to year.

Expand full comment

There is a deliberate conspiracy of division going on. How many of you know that the comments in threads on major platforms are algorithmic to the individual user?

So you go to a thread & the replies you see are tailored for you without you knowing. Even your bestie can load the same page at the same time & see totally different comments.

So not only is there a narrow window of acceptable discourse in the MSM, all left leaning, but you now are exposed to a different reality online than many others which creates a serious disconnect in our perception of reality.

Expand full comment

That needs to be outlawed Jake. Just like false advertising and perpetrating a public fraud. Let's get busy on legislation and enforcement.

Expand full comment

Correct that the battle against the Marxists who control the CommiecRat party & have indoctrinated tens of millions in the US will not be won by an election . . . or even several elections. Patriots must regain control of the gov't indoctrination centers, the schools from pre K to post graduate. The apathy of we the people is why our once great republic is what it has become. We must get ON school boards not just complain. We must defund Marxist U's which is nearly all of them in America.

Expand full comment

What is really sad is the number of "Americans" who are crying and anguished that another American was not murdered.

Expand full comment

"As described, it is largely Truth itself that forms an epicenter of the conflict."

Which is THE reason Trump has posed such an existential threat and has been treated as he has. The one thing I believe will be Trump's most lasting legacy is the fact he has, at times almost just by existing in his recent roles, forced open curtains hiding so much. For that, in a perfect world for those who so strongly oppose truths they wish to hide, Trump must be "neutralized."

Expand full comment

God bless you Sarah and thank you for giving us all a voice of truth. Keep the Faith and be in radiant good health.

Expand full comment

Thank you for the clear insight.

Expand full comment

It's not rocket science - they covertly and deceptively took over the schools over a long period of years while we slept and as a result are wreaking havoc and destruction upon our children and our culture. Therefore, we very openly take back the schools on behalf of our children and culture, properly redesign them and restore the natural order and true social justice. It takes a plan and a strategy and committed citizens willing to work to do that. That's what they did and as is often pointed out they are not very smart, full of contradictions with a hopeless philosophy, yet they are very committed and appear to somehow think they are right. I'm sure in fact I know there are groups already doing this to establish a proper public and private American educational system - find them - join them - support them.

Expand full comment

You are an amazing writer. I found this very inspirational. We all do need to fight for truth and destroy the deceiving media manipulators and put those who can be on a path to redemption.

Expand full comment

Thank you Sarah; always nice hearing outright truths.

Expand full comment

This report sums up the situation for me.

Physically unfit, under-qualified agents with a diversity-obsessed boss chosen by Dr Jill Biden! After Secret Service botched the Trump shooting, ANDREW NEIL exposes terrifying insider details of why they failed

By ANDREW NEIL, DAILY MAIL

PUBLISHED: 17:53 BST, 16 July 2024.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13640193/unfit-Secret-Service-botched-Trump-shooting-Andrew-Neil.html

Expand full comment

As always your comments are valid, but my focus would be on the Secret Service and who ordered them to allow this to take place. My pick of the culprits would be The committee of 300, Tavistock Institute or The Black Nobility.

The service woman at the scene looked as if she did not know which way was up.

Expand full comment

Each day employees at the Central Intelligence Agency walk on the words of Christ in John 8:32, "and ye shall know the truth, and the truth will set you free." Those words are not on a wall to remind them that truth is essential to freedom. No, they walk on those words as they deceive and sow chaos around the world. They do this because they have no fear of God. They are heaping up wrath in our name making us despised in the world.

Expand full comment

Fictitious existence, brings to mind Lazarus at the gate. Seen but never recognized nor acknowledged. The state of humanity ignored by a depraved elite.

The same that drops the prolife plank to help with “diversity” or some such fictitious virtue that must be signaled to include the evil doer Batman. Since the Keystone Cops lost the Bat signal to looters before whom they bowed the knee. Can’t reach the virtuous Batman any longer.

Expand full comment

The problem is which lies. The ones told about Trump or many that he has told himself. I'm glad I dont have to decide in your elections, - the unworthy versus the zombie

Expand full comment

I am glad you do not have to decide either.

Expand full comment

They system is the same world wide, the candidates and leaders are chosen for you before the elctions take place.

Expand full comment