Could this be You?

Minstrel

Hero Member
Oct 12, 2008
520
3
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Detector(s) used
Garrett-GTI-2500
You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows.

One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble.

In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter.

"What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask.

"Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven."

The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero.

Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars.

A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges.

The judge sentences you to life in prison.

This case really happened.

On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk , England , killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term.

How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire ?

It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns.

Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns.

Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead.

The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.)

Nine years later, at Dunblane , Scotland , Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school.

For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later,

Sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens.

During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released.

Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands."

All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars.

When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens.

How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars.

Sound familiar?

WAKE UP AMERICA , THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

"..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.."

--Samuel Adams

If you think this is important, please send to your friends.
 

Cynangyl

Gold Member
Apr 12, 2007
11,346
78
God's lap
Detector(s) used
X-terra 70
ACE 250
Not often enough folks see it in that light, thanks for sharing that story with us.
 

Tubecity

Bronze Member
Mar 11, 2007
1,000
12
sw Pa.
Great way to explain what may happen here & what I believe the gun-grabbers & socialists want
to bring about. I'll send this story on & I'm sure a hundred or so will have read it by tomorrow.
Good post.
 

The Beep Goes On

Silver Member
Jan 11, 2006
3,403
207
Houston, TX
Detector(s) used
CTX3030, Excalibur II, V3i, TRX
Primary Interest:
Metal Detecting
I saw this guy's story on a video. Talk about pushing my angry button. We can trust no one in gov't to protect our rights to self-defense. Join the NRA.

Beep
 

camperlee

Hero Member
Jan 8, 2008
659
5
belding, Michigan
Detector(s) used
whites XLT Garrett GTI 2500 Garrett ACE 250
believe it or not folks the same thing is about to happen right here in the good old USA if we are not carefull.
 

Lowbatts

Gold Member
Jul 1, 2003
6,573
67
Elgin
Detector(s) used
Fishers 1235X-8" CZ-20/21-8" F-70-11"DD GC1023
The real test for the beleaguered UK will be when a Muslim shoots a Catholic. Will he be prosecuted under Sharia law?

What are the stakes in that scenario?
 

Montana Jim

Gold Member
Sep 18, 2006
11,697
148
Montana
SWR said:
Applying American standards to something that happened in the UK is flat out wrong.

We know that in Texas you can shoot a burglar in the back while fleeing from your neighbor’s unattended house.

Good grief. These emails are so transparent

While this is true, and obviously true, some thing we in the US are headed down this same path. All the signs are there and if someone is just a little more aware because of these (and at least this one is a REAL story) then it's a good thing.

We should be afraid that we will follow in Britian's footsteps... they are losing rights at an accelerated rate.
 

Montana Jim

Gold Member
Sep 18, 2006
11,697
148
Montana
I was comming back to edit my post that this was a political thing and I see you beat me too it SWR... this IS a politcal thing.
 

mrs.oroblanco

Silver Member
Jan 2, 2008
4,356
427
Black Hills of South Dakota
Detector(s) used
Tesoro Lobo & Garrett Stinger
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Thank you for posting this.

It's a sad, but oh so true, history in the world.

The fact is, almost 100% of totalitarian governments started out by getting rid of the armed public. Sometimes, it started out very slightly - change the laws for an event that had a gun component in it. Then, well, maybe we should take away the rights of people who are convicted of a gun crime (everybody can agree with that, right? - except it's against the constitution to be able to take away your constitutional rights, except for treason).

Then - well, maybe if we register them, it'll help the police. Then, well, maybe we should outlaw certain kinds - don't need those for protection or hunting - then, maybe we should have a system to be able to check everyone out who wants to own a gun - and let's add one for anyone who wants to actually carry it around under the seat of their car, or in their purse.

Then - gee, there is an awful lot of people in cities, we shouldn't have them around all those people. And then, gosh, you know, sometimes kids get hurt with them - lets make a law that says you have to have it locked away, with the ammunition separate - yeah, that's the ticket.

Then - hey - the population is restless - it could be an issue for our politicians - let's "buy" back guns - gee, we are only getting the wall-hangers that are pretty much useless - let's make a law that takes the guns away.

All of these acts are against our constitution - but even the most hard-headed pro second amendment folks are ok with limiting the 2nd amendment.

Sure, criminals shouldn't have them - uh - after they have done their sentences and paid their debts to society - its against the constitution to permanently remove their constitutional rights - but, we compromise - we compromise our constitution and our own rights - we just don't see it.

Isn't it just the epitome of irony that the story written is from: the people we ran away from! Good old Mother England.

Don't let them take ANY of your constitutional rights away - for ANY reason.

B
 

mrs.oroblanco

Silver Member
Jan 2, 2008
4,356
427
Black Hills of South Dakota
Detector(s) used
Tesoro Lobo & Garrett Stinger
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
That's not force feeding our ideas on another country - that's making sure that what happens in other countries isn't spoon fed to us.

B
 

Kiwijohn

Sr. Member
Dec 10, 2008
350
0
New Zealand
Detector(s) used
X-Terra 705 Excalibur 1000 Garrett Pro Pointer
I guess what you are talking about here is gun control in the USA.
Next month, the 19th April in fact, marks the anniversary of a previous
failed attempt at gun control in the US.
On that date in 1775 the opening shots of the American Revolution were fired
in response to the efforts of King George III to disarm his subjects in the American colonies.

In the early morning hours of April 19th, 1775, word spread like wildfire that the British Army had departed Boston, and was preparing to march on the city of Concord. A small contingent of average, run of the mill Americans chose to take a stand in Lexington, Massachusetts. With one shot, the course of American history was forever altered. That single ball of lead sparked a revolution, creating our great country, which has been a beacon of freedom and prosperity for over two centuries. However, why was this shot fired? The answer is simple: gun control.

The reason why the British military was ordered to Concord was to capture and destroy weapons, which they feared would be used to launch a revolution. Well, they were right. If it weren’t for the fact that the colonists owned and were proficient in the use of firearms, it is doubtful that the revolution would have taken place at all.





Reposted from the web site of the College Republicans of Arizona State University of 03 February 2009.
 

mrs.oroblanco

Silver Member
Jan 2, 2008
4,356
427
Black Hills of South Dakota
Detector(s) used
Tesoro Lobo & Garrett Stinger
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
If it weren’t for the fact that the colonists owned and were proficient in the use of firearms, it is doubtful that the revolution would have taken place at all.

And, it is the very same reason why our forefather's included the 2nd Amendment in our Constitution - and our forefather's specifically said, in various personal notes and writings, that our weapons should be a match for any possible enemy - foreign or domestic. SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED - was very clear and concise.
 

Kiwijohn

Sr. Member
Dec 10, 2008
350
0
New Zealand
Detector(s) used
X-Terra 705 Excalibur 1000 Garrett Pro Pointer
In terms of personal liberty, it is widely recognized that the first amendment is by far the most important. It firmly establishes that Americans have the right to say what they think, print what they want, and practice whatever religion they wish to without fear of persecution. These are fundamental freedoms which every American cherishes. However, what Americans today seem to have forgotten, is that this document is just that, a document. It is an old piece of parchment. Words printed on a piece of paper are worthless if they are not heeded by the federal government. [or an informed citizenry] And, because the founding fathers recognized this fact, they chose to preserve the power of the average American through the second amendment, the right to keep and bear arms.
 

mrs.oroblanco

Silver Member
Jan 2, 2008
4,356
427
Black Hills of South Dakota
Detector(s) used
Tesoro Lobo & Garrett Stinger
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
Luckily, the Supreme Court DID take the DC case.

Federal Supreme Court trumps the 9th circuit course (yea, for us). :thumbsup: (don't get to say that too often)

B
 

mrs.oroblanco

Silver Member
Jan 2, 2008
4,356
427
Black Hills of South Dakota
Detector(s) used
Tesoro Lobo & Garrett Stinger
Primary Interest:
All Treasure Hunting
I believe what they decided was that we, as individuals, are the people that the constitution was talking about.

Alot of suits have been done with the "an armed militia" theory being used as a reason over why we couldn't own individual types of guns.

This case, interpreted the Constitution to mean "individual" being a person, not being part of a militia or anything else.

B
 

JamesE

Full Member
I always thought the Right to Bear Arms could be interpreted as a citizens' right to join the state or federal military. And if every citizen of any kind had that option it would negate private ownership. (as a means to disarm the public) Done well, it could essentially end unemployment due to the military hiring the excess of the workforce. Problem is, we only do this for waging war, It needs to be reinvented to wage peace using the same method.

Someone may feel free to correct me, (you know there's a BUTT coming, and it's me)
butt... :icon_scratch:
Me thinks 'freedom of religion' is not what it says, it's more like, this: :icon_study: http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html#Am1
The term, 'Freedom of Religion', is a generic term that deflects criticism and debate of things like foreign aid and arms for religion based countries like Israel while at the same time rejecting aid to countries whose religion is demonized. ( I do not wish to start a debate on the subject, just an illustration :stop:)
It also is not applied by the IRS, as a church can have it's tax exempt benefits revoked for political rhetoric from the pulpit. ( unless it's in support of the current regime)
It also doesn't apply to gnostic and rastafarian, or aboriginal use of natural substances (weed, mushrooms, peyote :icon_sunny: :tard:) in the practice of their spirituality.
jim
 

Top Member Reactions

Users who are viewing this thread

Top