Joined
·
30,457 Posts
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 in
prison.
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 firearm confiscation began in earnest after the
Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed
man with a Kalashnikov rifle (AK-47), 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.
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 in
prison.
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 firearm confiscation began in earnest after the
Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed
man with a Kalashnikov rifle (AK-47), 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.
