Many of us involved in gun rights advocacy have seen the poster accompanying this column. It was the terrifying dawn of World War II, and the British, fearing German invasion, were ill-prepared to defend their nation.
The December 1959 issue of GUNS Magazine is now online, and it tells us the story behind the poster in the feature article "Guns in our bundles for Britain," by William B. Edwards. Here are some of the highlights:
"We shall fight them on the beaches, we shall fight them on the landing grounds, we shall fight them in the fields and the streets, we shall fight them in the hills-
"We shall never surrendah!"
And they say as the broadcast was momentarily interrupted by applause, Winston Churchill turned sadly and angrily away from the mike and said:
"But I do not know what we shall fight them with ..."
Edwards comprised a fascinating account of the effort to change that. And he gave us some interesting insights on the dangers of registration:
I was told by a leading London gun dealer that selected personnel were called secretly to the War Office in Whitehall, given individual keys to lorries full of Bren guns, grenades and ammunition, and told to "take the bloody stuff and bury it-we don't want records and we don't want to be able to be forced to tell where it is-and use it for resistance in the invasion."
We learn about the American Committee for Defense of British Homes, and some of the personalities involved. And we learn how the possession of small arms led Bert "Yank" Levy, a "specialist in guerrilla and irregular fighting," to "express...the belief that Home Guard defense was why 'Britain can no longer successfully be invaded.'"
Wherever the enemy may land, he will immediately be confronted by a nucleus of men born and bred in the district, knowing every foot of topography, fighting from every city, town village and hamlet, from every ditch, copse, wood, hill, and valley...
"The importance of the Home Guard idea in world politics is vast," Levy noted. "For instance, this approach to war is proof that where a government trusts its people, its people trust and protect their government..."
Sadly, outrageously, we learn that when the danger had passed, government trust in the people went away, and the people for the most part, obeyed in the "cleansing of firearms."
Thus today's sorry state of affairs. This is one hell of an historic account, and you won't find it anywhere else. Knowing it, how many American gun owners would be inclined to answer a similar call for help today? Take the poll and give us an idea:
There's more: Even then, there were those with an agenda attempting to change our perception about guns in private hands. Read about a rigged anti-gun Gallup poll on page 31, and see Editor E.B. Mann dissect it for the subversive nonsense that it was--and read the letters of outrage in the "Crossfire" section, which include some pithy dissections of New York City's Sullivan Laws. Again from Mann:
On the other side of that coin is my personal knowledge that, during Prohibition's gangster-ridden era in New York City, the mobsters (including Big Dutch Schultz himself) carried guns for which they had police-issued Sullivan Law permits.
Or how about this bit of surreal nostalgia from "Guns in the News"?
San Francisco, Calif. Duty in a downtown office building here doesn't keep the Marines from maintaining the Corps' sharpshooting reputation. They go up on the roof and indulge in daily rifle practice.
See what the legislators had to say about the Second Amendment in "Know Your Lawmakers"--we can see the beginnings of equivocation from some that would evolve into the full-blown hostility we see today on the part of our present crop of authoritarians.
Learn about "sixguns at 600 yards," derringers, hand-loading, hunting, shooting, maintenance...and, of course, enjoy the classic period ads and prices from a time some of us still remember.
Click here to download this historic issue (and it's not too late to get the Nov. '59 issue).
GUNS Magazine cover © Publishers Development Corporation
------------
Not without a fight interview
Mark your calendars. Next Tuesday, I'll be using this column to interview Max Lemus, producer of "Not without a fight," a documentary where he traveled the country interviewing gun rights advocates.
I'll start out with a Q&A and then open the floor up for questions from...you, via "Comments." Max will be checking in throughout the day to read and answer them.
Join us--and tell a friend.
Learn more by clicking here.
Comments
Not until they compensate us for all the historic American guns they destroyed as part of their ban over a decade ago.
In the meantime they can buy cheap ones like everyone else does, from the Russians, Chinese or Yugos. England needs moar Mosin.
"Would you 'send a gun to defend a British home'?"
No.
They made the mess; they can clean it up. And last time Americans lent gun to the Brits, it was generally the last they saw of them, as the Brit gov destroyed the guns rather than return them. I've heard some came back, but that was apparently the exception.
I would gladly give a firearm directly to a citizen who will use it to protect themselves and their family against criminals or tyranny, but I voted "No" because the question asked if I would give one to Britain. F*** their government for disarming free people. F*** the Queen, F*** Parliment, and F*** anyone who believes that it's OK to deny ANYONE an effective means of self defense for themselves and their families.
Carl pretty much nailed it in my view - "They made the mess; they can clean it up." I couldn't say it any better.
I might add: They trust the government to keep them safe - so they can continue to trust the government to keep them safe.
No, Hell NO! They keep voluntarily returning to a state of infancy. They disarmed between the wars, the begged guns, then disarmed again. At some time you must let junior fall on his face and knock his own teeth out. Always being there to catch him when he will not cease his stupid behavior just depletes your own resources and provides no lasting positive effects for him. Britain is on her own if she needs my help. In fact, I am hostile toward them as I know they would spread their filth here given the chance. She has been doing her best to fail for a very long time, it is time she succeeded at that failure.
Would you 'send a gun to defend a British home'?
Oh, hell no. Having fewer guns in the US and more in Britain would blur the evidence of the consequences of tyrannical socialism. Why cover up for bad guys, and give up perfectly good guns in the process?
If they completely and irrevocably change their political system to be more freedom oriented, I'd be willing, but then there'd be no need because they could just build their own plants.
Britons: You made your bed, now sleep in it. We need more guns here. The U.S. has a devil government that needs to be slain.
make your own bed limey , those aholes suck. the rape murder ands pillage werever they go, as far as guns go if you wanna send one send it to the wite house i think obama needs one for his toour in afganastan
Regardless I would do everything I could to support the freedoms of those who wish to remain free.
Yes I agree with some of the comments at least partially, they made their bed etc.- however, what if we needed help?
Jesse - "however, what if we needed help?"
Then given their current status, they wouldn't be there to give us weapons to protect ourselves.
Unless they have some thing to give us in exchange, it is not in our best interests to give them weapons unless they had some thing of value that they would be able to give us.
British Government = No.
An individual British subject = Yes.
Wait....why would the British need guns again? Are the Belgians coming to invade them?
I'd send a gun to an individual if I had "extra," but not to the government.
No. Not because of any actions of British politicians, but because I don't know anybody who lives there or is from there and don't much care about the country.
Now, if the British decided they wanted to re-conquer Ireland, I'd certainly send a gun to defend an Irish home...
Would you give the grasshopper (of the fable) food as the cold winter approaches? No, especially when you gave him food last winter, and he didn't change his ways.
I correspond with someone from England whom I would send a gun to. I know he would not surrender it to the government. I don't blame individuals for the actions of their government any more than I accept blame for the actions of the US government.
No. Until I see the British people availing themselves of "self help" to take back their God given right to self defense, my gun safe is off limits.
England is the quintessential "mommy-state" that tyrants like Bloomberg, Daley, and D.C. mayor Fenty are trying to emulate. Don't throw good money after bad.
When things get to the breaking point in England and the people rise up in defiance, then I might reconsider, but not before. They must prove they are worthy of our generosity.
Also, if I were to send a gun to England, it's going to a specific Briton who I've met to prevent it from falling into the hands of one of the rapidly growing number of extreme Islamic fundamentalists who have already shown a wanton proclivity to kill Britons. I'll probably catch some heat for saying that.
Many of us would provide a gun to a fellow human we believe deserves it--but the question here assumes a parallel to the past example--in other words, would you send a gun through an American committee to ship to the British government for distribution? That's the context under which the question is asked.
I know some British people and I would send them a gun directly if they wanted one, but only on the condition that it is never to be given to the British government. If guns become illegal again, they are to either defy the law and keep it or return it to me. Even then I would probably just send them either a cheap single action revolver or bolt rifle. The good mag fed stuff stays here to defend our homes from tyranny.
British Government = No.
An individual British subject = Yes.
No, not to the government. I do know a few people in Europe, and I would do what I could to help them.
David: "in other words, would you send a gun through an American committee to ship to the British government for distribution?"
When you put it that way David,
Absolutely, positively, 100% no!
Clearly the British government is no friend to Britons. I don't trust them to do what's right with regard to social issues and I certainly don't trust them civilian gun rights.
Grandma was born and raised in England. Some of her sons went back to fight the Germans in WW2. ALL of her sons and most of her grandsons served in the U.S. military. I've still got kin in Britain.
But I would not send so much as a single cartridge, never mind a gun, to the British government. To those in Britain who actually understand and value liberty I only say: get out of there anyway you can.
Way i understand wjhat happened back then , was that most of those guns , never made it to civilian hands but were stored in stratigic locations, as to would i send 1 now? nope, the british citizens have at their disposal the tools to change their laws, if they think they need to change their laws , then let them , and do what they must . until then, i suggest they review history and learn from past mistakes, we are not here as their repository for when they do make mistakes
I voted NO. However, if I knew without reservations that the Brit government would keep its coon fingers off my gun I would change my vote.
[W-III]
If it has anything to do with current GB politicians then my answer has to be: Oh, hell no!
But I'd gladly chip in towards a container load of some of those cheap stamped sheet metal Liberator single shot .45s like we dropped into Europe during WWII. Just so long as they got in the right hands.
That said, best I can tell there really isn't all that much of a problem getting your hands on a gun in Britain these days. All you have to do is decide to break the law. What I can tell from news reports, if you're a bad guy they almost issue you a weapon at the local cop shop. It's just the citizens that get busted for self defense.
I agree, yes their government let them down, but I would choose to send the firearms to the people not the bureaucrats. Given the option to defend ones family from harm or fear of government retaliation, I rather have my family alive and safe. You cant reason with stupid and you can never talk someone out of doing wrong if they have made up their mind to do so. Its always the good people who suffer the consequences of decisions people who are out of touch make. Who's to blame? Its not the people, its the government that claims that being civilized will solve evil and make them go away. NOT!!!!
Just my opinion.
If they called for help, I would certainly try my damndedt to help. The right to defend oneself is a fundamental human right that no one should be deprived.
What, and have them DUMP my gun in the OCEAN after the war, like they did at the end of WW II?
NO WAY!
They made the stew they are in, let them eat their way out of it.
"F" em'!!!
nope thay gave them up once thay would do it again
NO! The government of England has determined that their citizens can't be trusted with firearms. So, why should I trust them?
No. We did this once before and they turned around and sh.. in our mess kit. Let them show they have the backbone to fight and not whine.
No. The American people always seem to give and not get anything in return for our efforts. Just look how much our own government takes from us, money, our freedoms, and our rights. We get in return more laws that turn innocent people into criminals, we get illegals getting handouts over our citizens, we get the UN trying to tell us how to manage our business and personal lives, we get the hatred from the world from being a success story. So no to the oppressive English government. Send the well meaning English people to concentration camps while everything gets sorted out under the wisdom of their government.
David Codrea, my answer is NO. As you know, Britain passed gun control legislation in 1920, IN RESPONSE to the Bolshevik Revolution (my emphasis), not as a "public safety measure". Then, when the Luftwaffe rained rockets over London, the Brits whined like children, pleading with the NRA, hunters, and sport shooters to send them guns to defend themselves. Churchill even traded the Azores Islands to FDR in exchange for those old destroyers. Then, at the end of WWII, OUR donated arms got dumped in the ocean.
Oh Dave, the speech you cited about "fighting on the beaches"... was not spoken by Churchill but an impressionist, who had Churchill's approval to do so.
NO, NO, NO, NO!
We sent 2 million guns to them the last time with the promise of there return. Those guns were either thrown in the ocean or the barrels were cut off and used for rebar.
The British still have pills upon piles of our Lend-Lease guns stacked up rotting. Tommy guns setting outside in the elements for 64years. The British also have piles of Enfields rotting.
British and Wall-Street Banks funded Nazi Germany. Now declassified documents show that Hitler and Mussolini were on the payroll of MI5. (London telegraph)
After Dunkirk the British were out of ammo so the Banks arranged to have Germany manufacturer British ammo and deliver it secretly to the British in a German Sub to keep the war going. (Thanks to Dr. Stanley Monteith radiolibertydotcom)
We have to understand that there is a greater agenda than just gun control going on!
The more I think about this, the more I think the best bet would be instruct the British people on the necessity of taking arms from those in their country "allowed" to be armed- police and the military. The UK probably has plenty of guns, they are just held by the wrong people. Think of it as a "gun take-back" to get guns out of the wrong hands and back in the hands of those who have a legitimate use for them.
I am going to relate by anecdotal information why my vote is HELL NO! While I was still in school (college) I achieved a broken ankle, that about sums up my higher education achievements. At the same time I had an acquaintance who was there on a baseball scholarship who had also broken his ankle (sliding into second base). I was in Oklahoma City at a drive-in restaurant when I spied this athletic fellow several spaces down being accosted by two bullies who were roughing him up. I unclimbed my car, grabbed my crutches and started down there to aid him. My thought was use the crutch to get one guy off him and even in our crippled state we should be able to handle the other guy.
A funny thing happened on the way there, I noticed he was not resisting. I immediately turned around and got back in my car.
Later, back [cont]
{cont] at school I ran into him and he asked why I didn't come down there to help him. I replied "You weren't even trying to help yourself. Why would I put myself in that situation when you can't be relied upon to defend yourself? I certainly had no reason to believe I could count on you to help me."
There you go. That's my reason. I don't help anybody without backbone.
Not only 'no', but "HELL NO!"
British subjects made their bed. If bad things happen, let them lie in their own pacifistic beds and be slaughtered like sheep.
Hell no! They chose to be peasants and serfs. It's their calf, so they can lick it.
Ain't no G D way. I feel the same as all of you. Especially straightarrow. You can't help those that won't help themselves. End of story.
The Islamofascists have declared their intention to impose Sharia Law on Europe, and recognizing weakness they say Britain will be the first to fall. Speaking out against this will be a hate crime. The once brave people of Formerly Great Britain, upon whose Empire the sun once never set, will find themselves Dhimmis in their own land, and it will be their own fault. It won't be much different. One master is the same as another.
Why? So Geroge Soros (aka "King George") can takem all away and give em to Rebecca Peters to melt down?
Hey England do ya want our freedom??
Ya know the one you tried to take from us
Take it back from your oppressors
We (the USA)are the only free nation left and barely at that
Why couldn't the Europeans see it coming?
You keep your kings and I'll keep my guns
Despite the "hope & change" culture
The Brits don't want them. Fine with me. Great Britain is the buffer zone, by their own choice.
In 1917 both of my grandfathers took their guns to Britain then in the forties we sent my father and a gun to Britain along with a few hundred thousand of his closest friends. That should be enough.
Given our current emergency here I fear/hate seeing any guns or young men posted in foreign lands.
The Hell with Europe?
When England was still ruled by Edward Longshanks my ancestors took swords and shields to England. Of course, they were with an invading army of Scots under William Wallace.
No way I'd send a gun to help them now -- they'd just melt it.
If thye promise to throw all the libs and socialists and commies in the ocean instead of the guns, maybe...
John, the kind of people who would do this and the kind of people who would tolerate are not the kind of people in whose promises one can believe.
I'd simply point to the Atlantic Ocean where they dumped the last batch of guns we sent them. "You want them? Go get them."
Pages
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!