What we all fear.

Joined
Aug 21, 2008
Messages
5,270
Likes
1,963
Location
western Ma
Feedback: 7 / 0 / 0
THIS IS LONG BUT SOBERING, PLEASE READ.



you'r sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom....

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
 
Scotland Yard's anti-gun chief hurt in gang attack (Gun-free utopia alert)
Yorkshire Post ^ | 24 November 2008 | Grace Hammond

Posted on Monday, November 24, 2008

A senior police officer was hit with a brick during an attack by a gang of four people – including a girl of 15 –it has been revealed.

Detective Superintendent Gary Richardson, who leads Scotland Yard's Operation Trident which tackles black gun crime, was assaulted while walking along the road with his wife and son.

Two men abused the officer before hitting him on the back of the head with a brick. A scuffle followed, during which Mr Richardson, 49, blocked several blows with his arm and was hit in the back.

The attack in West Molesey, Surrey, took place on October 12, but it was revealed yesterday that the senior officer was the victim.

Scotland Yard confirmed Mr Richardson was assaulted. Surrey police refused to reveal details of the victim but released information about the attack.

The officer was taken to Kingston Hospital after the assault with minor injuries.

Two men aged 19 and 20 and a 15-year-old girl, all from West Molesey, were arrested along with a second girl, 17, from Wimbledon.

The four were bailed until December 20 pending further enquiries, a spokesman for Surrey Police said.
 
IIRC, Tony Martin shot at least one of the burglars in the back.
Mas Ayoob I believe has shown that sometimes between when the person decides to fire and than pulls the trigger that in that instant a person can turn from facing you to having their back towards you.
Tony Martiin may have intentionally shot one in the back but at the time when he decided to pull the trigger the person may have been facing him.
 
Mas Ayoob I believe has shown that sometimes between when the person decides to fire and than pulls the trigger that in that instant a person can turn from facing you to having their back towards you.
Tony Martiin may have intentionally shot one in the back but at the time when he decided to pull the trigger the person may have been facing him.

And who cares?

He wouldn't have been shot if he didn't invade a house.
 
What this does is put hesitation in our actions. Instead of knowing that we will be vindicated of any wrong doing we have to worry about being painted as criminals for defending ourselves/family.


"A government big enough to give you what you want is strong enough to take everything you have." Thomas Jefferson
 
Our future looks brighter by the day. I bet a majority of sheeple who read this would either claim there must be more to the story, or blindly repeat "Don't be ridiculous, that could never happen here".

Thankfully,or at least I like to believe, that a large percentage of us gun crazy Americans would be AWOL come turn in day.
 
So when the day comes when they ask you to turn in your guys or lets say.

They offer direct debt relieve for turning in your guns how many people would go for it???

This is the gov:
handgun 500.00
Semi auto 1000.00
rifles 400.00
ammo 300.00 for every 1000 rds

This is there break down. I'm just saying here. How many dumpasses would go for it???

Economy collapses: gov gets more control
Food instabilty: gov gets more control
Oil goes up: gov gets more control
Oil goes down people go back to sleep gov gets more control
Buy back or Force back of your guns: gov gets more control
Higher taxes on everything or more taxes: gov has more control

There is a problem with this. Not sure what but I think there is a problem. Our forefather warned us and told us what to do but we all just sleep. :(
 
Last edited:
So when the day comes when they ask you to turn in your guys or lets say.

They offer direct debt relieve for turning in your guns how many people would go for it???

This is the gov:
handgun 500.00
Semi auto 1000.00
rifles 400.00
ammo 300.00 for every 1000 rds

This is there break down. I'm just saying here. How many dumpasses would go for it???

Economy collapses: gov gets more control
Food instabilty: gov gets more control
Oil goes up: gov gets more control
Oil goes down people go back to sleep gov gets more control
Buy back or Force back of your guns: gov gets more control
Higher taxes on everything or more taxes: gov has more control

There is a problem with this. Not sure what but I think there is a problem. Our forefather warned us and told us what to do but we all just sleep. :(


Those are the same ones who would subject themselves to the pending reeducation camps. [thinking]

Check out how Australia's buy back worked out:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html

Seems to me that, the gun deaths were declining steadily anyhow, regardless of the ban. [thinking]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html


I was reading a post and had to steal this:

gun buy back? You mean the government is going to give me 50 bucks for my SAR48 valued at 3,600.00? Great gawd allmighty, 50 bucks? Where do I sign up?

Before I'd let them give me 50 bucks each for rifles worth 2,000.00 to 4,000.00, I'd just assume donate them to the Latin Kings and let the government sort it out later.

[rofl][laugh2]

Yea...the average dollar cost was ~$500 per firearm.
 
Those are the same ones who would subject themselves to the pending reeducation camps. [thinking]

Don't they have some of those camps or places already in place

Anger management class, diversity training, and only Darwin theory in Public education science classes. NO ID theory???
 
Those are the same ones who would subject themselves to the pending reeducation camps. [thinking]

Don't they have some of those camps or places already in place

Anger management class, diversity training, and only Darwin theory in Public education science classes. NO ID theory???

I avoid those like the plague...but...yea... We are only a few short steps to oblivion.
 
And who cares?

He wouldn't have been shot if he didn't invade a house.


Exactly I agree but my response was to Jose who said he shot one of them in the back which most people would consider a bad shoot especially in the UK. But according to evidence Mas Ayoob has presented in cases before it may very well have been a good shoot and Tony Martin should not have been convicted.
 
Those are the same ones who would subject themselves to the pending reeducation camps. [thinking]

Check out how Australia's buy back worked out:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/gun-deaths-in-rapid-decline-since-buyback/2006/12/13/1165685752421.html

Seems to me that, the gun deaths were declining steadily anyhow, regardless of the ban. [thinking]
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/buyback-has-no-effect-on-murder-rate/2006/10/23/1161455665717.html


I was reading a post and had to steal this:



[rofl][laugh2]

Yea...the average dollar cost was ~$500 per firearm.

Australia's homicide rate was going up & down like crime usually does and when I last checked it is headed back up but all other types of violent crime such as assault, sexual assault and robbery have been steadily going up & up.
 
This is a sorrowfull story no doubt. Its horrible and unimaginable that any jury could convict someone for defending their family and home in a situation like that. Its also horrible that we live in a world where this is even a remote posibility as the possible outcome. Now there may be more details in this story than we know and I certainly understand "Use Of Force" policys on a Physical and Deadly standpoint (I teach it for crying out loud) from how I train my Officers at work. There may have been a point where a Jury felt that Deadly Force was not justified, I dont know. I do know that this is a VERY tricky subject and things can difficult.

I guess I will speak out of context for a minute and give you my personal opinion of how I would hope to handle it. I would have to sum my own mindset up to this and this only because its the only way I would be able to live with myself from that point on if this ever happend to me.................

I would still rather be judged by 12 than have my family or myself carried by 6


Period!!!! I dont give a crap what this or any other country would do to me. [frown]

I "WILL" protect my family if I have to nor will I think twice about it. If someone does this to me, they better make sure I dont get up because I am coming for you!!! I will worry about the consiquenses later. My family is priority [wink]
 
Last edited:
This is a sorrowfull story no doubt. Its horrible and unimaginable that any jury could convict someone for defending their family and home in a situation like that. Its also horrible that we live in a world where this is even a remote posibility as the possible outcome. Now there may be more details in this story than we know and I certainly understand "Use Of Force" policys on a Physical and Deadly standpoint (I teach it for crying out loud) from how I train my Officers at work. There may have been a point where a Jury felt that Deadly Force was not justified, I dont know. I do know that this is a VERY tricky subject and things can difficult.

I guess I will speak out of context for a minute and give you my personal opinion of how I would hope to handle it. I would have to sum my own mindset up to this and this only because its the only way I would be able to live with myself from that point on if this ever happend to me.................

I would still rather be judged by 12 than have my family or myself carried by 6


Period!!!! I dont give a crap what this or any other country would do to me. [frown]

I "WILL" protect my family if I have to nor will I think twice about it. If someone does this to me, they better make sure I dont get up because I am coming for you!!! I will worry about the consiquenses later. My family is priority [wink]

Well said, +1
 
Exactly I agree but my response was to Jose who said he shot one of them in the back which most people would consider a bad shoot especially in the UK. But according to evidence Mas Ayoob has presented in cases before it may very well have been a good shoot and Tony Martin should not have been convicted.

As said before, who cares which way he was shot? If someone breaks into your house I think its reasonable to assume the worst and shoot them in whatever position you happen to discover them in. If anything the burglar who survived should have been charged in connection with his buddy's death. [thinking]
 
"The State" would rather you die helplessly and willingly than defend yourself with force.

Why bother criminalizing burglary? Make it legal since you can't do anything to stop it in progress.
 
As said before, who cares which way he was shot? If someone breaks into your house I think its reasonable to assume the worst and shoot them in whatever position you happen to discover them in. If anything the burglar who survived should have been charged in connection with his buddy's death. [thinking]

My point is that the jury cared how he was shot. You forget this was in the UK not Texas.
 
I would like to know if anyone was in an earshot of the incident. If not, given living in a hellhole like the UK, I would toss the deceased in the trunk, drag em out to a farm and feed them to the pigs, A la the movie "Snatch". After all, are the survivors of these criminals going to call the police and say "I am worried, officer, they left hours ago to burglarize that house over there and they haven't returned. I fear the victim may have caught them and hid the bodies. You need to investigate!"?
 
Back
Top Bottom