Trapshooters Forum banner

Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 19 of 19 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
298 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,398 Posts
First let me say - I hate jury duty, but saying that, we should all serve, just in case "cases" like this come before the court. We need people who are knowledgeable and have common sense and aren't afraid to say no to the government.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,277 Posts
And that's what5 gets you dumped from serving on a jury. Judges have UNCONSTITUTIONALLY said that you have NO RIGHT to nullify bad laws. Even though this was a major reason why our Founding Fathers wanted trial by a jury of peers. Ordinary citizens would sit not only in judgment of the accused, but also in judgment of the law. If the law was bad, the jury had the power to not enforce it, thus nullifying it. Sadly, judges do not want juries to nullify the law. If you decide to nullify the law, you'd best not say so, else you'd be in contempt of court. You'd have to decide that the state simply did not convince you beyond a reasonable doubt that the person broke the law and hope that works.<br>
<br>
Once again government has taken a powerful tool away from ordinary citizens.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,536 Posts
royce, only free people can own weapons.

You refer to gun rights, but speak in the context of a (granted) privilege.

Make your mind up. Is it a right or a privilege?

Voting is a right.

Driving is a privilege.

Do you understand the difference?

HM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,177 Posts
FYI...in addition to draconian and ultra-restrictive firearms laws the Brits have enacted new tax laws that will subject it's highest income earners to a 61% income tax!...and you can bet Obama is watchin' it and lickin' his chops at the prospect of all that money!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,536 Posts
So the guy had no right to protect himself. The liberal pukes must be shivering with joy.

It will happen, and does happen in the USA also.

My personal belief is that I have a right to remain in my domicile unmolested, as long as I do not interfere with the rights of others.

Now when someone violates that right, what is my remedy?

I don't want to have to rely on a ten minute response time.

HM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,730 Posts
Tony Martin is now my personal hero! So much for the girlyman gov't of the UK, what a pitiful shell of a place that was once a superpower of the world!

What Brian said about juries is true, they can be mere puppets of the judges instructions to them....

I'll be cutting and pasting "Rottenluckwillies" original post for my E-mail buddies....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,580 Posts
Pardon me for forming an opinion with the information that was provided to me. Personal attacks?- All that I said was you missed the point. Your the one that started swearing and inferring ignorance.



Go crawl back under your rock.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
3,905 Posts
It will happen here before long! In 1976 I was living in Fond du Lac, Wi. Someone was breaking down my door at 2:30 in the morning on a saturday, I had a loaded pistol in the dresser drawer as I was single at that time. Picked the pistol up as I headed out of the bedroom, I got to the living room and started hollering to get out of here I have a gun! The "CONVICT" paid no attention and broke the door right off the hinges. When the door hit the floor I fired a shot through the wall 8' from the door 6" off the floor, one shot period! The perp got charged with criminal tresspass, I got charged with reckless use of a firearm. I hired a attorney and round up paying a fine for discharging a firearm in the city limits. The perp had been arrested several times for everything under the sun and my previous brushes with the law were traffic violations So there you go! Welcome to America 1976. Bill Grill
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,469 Posts
The only way to shoot an intruder is shoot to kill. Their rights end at that time as long as they are facing in and not out. Turn them if you must, but they need to be facing in. I am a peaceful person and never want to kill anyone, except when I have to and at that time I will without another thought.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
194 Posts
Move to SC guys--we recently, by statute, expanded the "castle doctrine", the common law principle that one, in his residence, has no duty to "retreat" (i.e. run until your back is to the wall) before using deadly force, to include your vehicle and place of business.We live in a pretty active "gun culture" down here. I hardly know anyone who doesn't own a firearm of some description. Gun ownership is a rihght in the US. Here it is darned near mandatory. hehehe
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,362 Posts
Turtle is right, Ohio has the Castle Doctrine too. Strictland is a DEM, a retired preacher, and came into office after Taft who was a cluster f--k. But Strictland has really kissed Hillary's butt and now Obamas, so I don't trust him. Politicians can turn on you in a heartbeat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,536 Posts
Judges, lawyers, and many law enforcement do not want to decrease crime. It is how they make their living.

Most people can't seem to figure that out. They would have you think you are protected when all you are is grease in their gears.

We send our young men to prison so they can become useful productive criminals, guaranteeing full emplyment in the legal. judicial, and corrctions industries.

The reason Nixon did not go to jail was because he didn't have enough of a life span to become a fully functioning career criminal. They needed the space for a young car jacker.

HM
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,712 Posts
If you're going to shoot a home invader, 2 things are important. 1. make sure he dead. 2. make sure he's inside your house. That way there's only one side of the story to be told.
 
1 - 19 of 19 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top