The truth is stranger than fiction...

Discussion in 'Legal and Activism' started by Shade, Oct 12, 2011.

  1. Shade

    Shade New Member


    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; 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.

    Think this is fiction, you would be wrong, 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 side arms 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?


    "...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
  2. BigByrd47119

    BigByrd47119 New Member

    Thanks for posting. I watched a video that discussed this at some length on YouTube (don't remember the name of the video, sorry) but its always a worth while reminder of just whats at stake.

  3. Trez

    Trez Well-Known Member

    "Being good British Subjects"
    We are American Citizens , and we must not forget that....
  4. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    The UK is screwed up and the only thing that will fix it is a complete revolution. They are proof of what gun control can do to a country. They are an example of why gun control is bad. They are a part of history now and we should learn from their mistakes.
    Most people who are for gun control has never had a gun so they think they are all dangerous. They have alway believed what the media (who always exaggerates everything and only releases what they want) says, so they only know about the badguys, not the good guys.
    They misunderstand ccw holders as crazed vigilanties when in fact, they are some of our most upstanding citizens. They believe that gun control and gun registration will keep guns out of the hands of a badguy. Do you think that a badguy would care about going through the proccess of buying a gun when he can get one/steal one illegally much easier?
    If Tony Martin was here in America, I would suggest either protesting his conviction, or forcibly freeing him. (that probably would not work out well unless thousands of people participated in his freeing) Sadly, he is in the United Liberal Kingdoms. This is an example of how stupid, cruel, and controling people can be.
    As for the United States, I have two words for you if you decide to revoke our god given rights. ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ. Come and get them you sons of B$%@#@$. I will never willingly give up my guns and will deal with anyone who tries.
  5. willshoum

    willshoum New Member

    The time has come..........

    Take away a mans right to protect his home and family, We should be a Communist Country.....At least the bad guys seem to disapear after they have been arrested......Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE KILL PEOPLE.......:mad:
  6. PanBaccha

    PanBaccha New Member

    Pretty s**ty if you ask me. Sounds like NYC laws. :mad:
  7. bkt

    bkt New Member

    Everyone has an innate right to protect their lives, the lives of their family, their property and their wealth from others who would take those things by force. Not everyone lives somewhere where the government recognizes that right. If you do, it seems smart not to contact the government if you needed to defend yourself, particularly with lethal force.

    "Shoot, shovel, and shut up" might be the smart choice, albeit the illegal one. To be considered good and just, laws must serve the people. The laws in the UK and elsewhere don't.
  8. texaswoodworker

    texaswoodworker New Member

    I think he would have been much better off if he had done that. He was convicted of 1st degree murder and sentenced to life. If they had caught him after buring the bodys, he probably would have gotten a simular sentence. He probably should have shot the second guy again too.
  9. winds-of-change

    winds-of-change The Balota's Staff Member

    Very good point.