take a stand.... vote!

Discussion in 'Politics Of Hunting And Guns (NOT General Politics' started by load, Jan 22, 2010.

  1. load

    load Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    366
    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2010
    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

    If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know. You
    better wake up cause your new president is going to do this very same thing over here if he can get it done. And there are stupid people in congress and on the street that will go right along with him.