Interesting and scary! Sorry it's long but needs to be heard!

[leroytwohawks]

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 sidearms 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.
Kind of 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


Don't let America go the same way!!!!!!!

[Roger Bleile]

Leroy,

I have followed the evolution of gun laws and self defense cases in the UK with interest for some years. The one thing that I have deduced from it all is that in the UK there are numerous small organizations interested in protecting gun owners and hunting rights. None of them alone speak for enough people to intimidate politicians. Also the issue of gun ownership in the UK has always been tied to their use in hunting or target shooting. They seem to have no concept of a right to own a firearm for self defense.

In the USA, self defense is considered a right that has a long history of court cases supporting the concept. Also there are many states who have enacted the "castle doctrine" specifically seting forth a right to use deadly force to protect oneself in the home.

These rights exist in the USA today primarily because the National Rifle Assocation has fought long and hard to protect them and the NRA, with its 4 million members, is a 500 pound gorilla in the world of US politics, unlike the numerous, impotent sportsmans organizations in the UK.

Some people tell me they don't belong to the NRA because they don't agree with everything they do or stand for. Well, name one large organization that you agree with 100% from your church to FEGA? In the end it is the NRA that has protected our rights not only to gun ownership but to self defense as well. That is why I am a life patron member.

CRB

[Chad]

WARNING!!! Long rant comming up.
This has to be my personal pet peeve in America right now... the number of illiterate fools claiming that their personal subsidy is a 'Basic Human Right'.Yes you have a right to 'Life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness', however...

A right is something that you have in you, it requires nothing of anyone else.
The pursuit is not a promise of hapiness, there has been endless wars to keep liberty and you are responsible for your oun life.
My taxes are not suposed to feed, clothe or shelter you. Yes are taxes do go to protect our safety and lock up bad guys but, you can't sue the police for failing to keep you safe, ulltimately its your responsibility to keep yourself safe... SELF DEFENCE.

If you look at the bill of Rights it's a negative Declaration. It says what the gov't can not do to you.

If you have any doubt about this consider the Right of Free Speech.

You can say virtually anything you want but, I am not required to listen and its up to you to say something intelligent!
The same goes for the right to life you have to feed and care for yourself.
You have to make the best, informed, decisions about what is going to lengthen your life and make you happy.
Making me defensless does not make you safer, lengthen your life or keep you free, and you don't have the right to endanger my life to make yourself happy!

[PS_Bond]

Originally Posted by Roger Bleile

The one thing that I have deduced from it all is that in the UK there are numerous small organizations interested in protecting gun owners and hunting rights.

Kind of... Except they're more interested in looking out for their own discipline, and damn the rest. The (UK) NRA wasn't hugely interested in anything other than fullbore TR, so semis & pistols weren't defended. Single issue politics aren't much use when all parties are trying to outdo each other on how tough they are on these strange people who use firearms.

I find it utterly incredible that I used to be trusted to carry a GPMG, yet now have to jump through hoops to own a .22 (and yes, that's one calibre where we still stick to Imperial!).

[Fred Marrinan]

This might get the gun control folks attention

[WVEngraver]

Originally Posted by leroytwohawks

You're sound asleep when you hear
a thump outside your bedroom door.

[WVEngraver]

Originally Posted by Roger Bleile

the NRA that has protected our rights

.... well, at least not always ..... but then I wonder how far down the rabbit hole we'd be without them.

Here's some stuff a lot of people don't know about:


NRA Supported the National Firearms Act of 1934


"The National Rifle Association has been in support of workable, enforceable gun control legislation
since its very inception in 1871."

—NRA Executive Vice President Franklin L. Orth
NRA's American Rifleman Magazine, March 1968, P. 22

[rick hall]

Roger, I respect you and what you stand for. Chris brings up things that have always troubled me.. The NRA shouldnt be holding hands with anyone who promotes any tpye of gun control, its like a union making concessions you wont get back !! Americans understand what the Constitution means plus the Bill of Rights, and infringe means just what it says, the government attemps at SPIN-CONTROL is an attempt to gain power that isnt allocated to them.. ... Divide and conquer is another tool to disarm,so all of us must watch this and not get caught up with emotions that cloud our thinking...The people in government do not know what is good for us; only what is good for them !!