PDA

View Full Version : Another 'classic' reminder.



Uncle Bill
01-09-2010, 01:21 PM
Gun Control under this current administration, WILL COME UP...sooner than later. Here's an oldie from the files. Don't forget how incrementalism works. Maybe our Canadian RTFers can respond.

UB



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

K G
01-09-2010, 02:35 PM
Was there EVER an organization in Great Britain that took up the cause of a legally armed citizenry, a sister if you will to the NRA?

I'm guessing not.....;-)

Our Constitution wouldn't BE if our forefathers hadn't seen the need to escape monarchical tyranny.

2nd Amendment indeed regards,

kg

YardleyLabs
01-09-2010, 03:21 PM
There are also a few differences between the real story and the one portrayed here. Tony Martin's ownership of the shotgun only became illegal when his permit was revoked after numerous incidents including one in which he shot at passing vehicle. When he shot the man and kid (16 year old) involved in this incident, they were not brandishing a crowbar while trying to enter his house, they were trying to escape out a window. Following the shooting, Martin fled with his weapon to hide at his mother's house, never calling the police. The teenager shot by Martin actually bled to death many hours following the shooting but before he could be found by police investigating after the other burglar sought medical attention. The jury had the option of findng him guilty of manslaughter if they believed that he did not intend to injure the burglars. The jury returned a verdict of murder. Based on an appeal where it was argued that Martin was actually clinically paranoid, the murder conviction was reduced to manslaughter and his sentence was reduced.

The equivalent story in this country would be if one of us were prohibited from gun ownership as a result of a criminal conviction. We then used an illegally owned gun to shoot intruders who were fleeing from our house -- not entering it and not attacking. following the shooting, we leave the scene without reporting the incident and hide out until found by the police. While in my state there would never be a conviction for shooting an intruder at night, even under these circumstances, I suspect that I would end up being convicted of manslaughter for leaving the scene and failing to report the incident and that I would also be convicted of illegal possession of a weapon. The combination would certainly earn me some time in jail.

I certainly prefer our laws on gun ownership and my own state's rather forgiving interpretation of statutes concerning self defense. However, Mr. Martin would have spent a few years in jail here just as he did in England

K G
01-09-2010, 06:38 PM
Ahhh.....those pesky details......

Perception is NOT always reality regards,

kg

Eric Johnson
01-09-2010, 07:43 PM
Jeff-

A brief correction.....

If we are extending the circumstances to include "your" trial, the attorney would argue diminished capacity and the jury would enter a verdict of NGRI.....Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. Then you'd go to a state mental institution that handles forensic cases until found fit to return to society.

Eric

YardleyLabs
01-09-2010, 07:45 PM
Jeff-

A brief correction.....

If we are extending the circumstances to include "your" trial, the attorney would argue diminished capacity and the jury would enter a verdict of NGRI.....Not Guilty by Reason of Insanity. Then you'd go to a state mental institution that handles forensic cases until found fit to return to society.

Eric
Ahhh, you're resorting to Stalin's old tricks. Anyone who disagrees with you must be insane. Obviously that means you are a Commie!:D

Hoosier
01-09-2010, 09:42 PM
And here I was thinking anyone who disagrees was "racist".

Eric Johnson
01-09-2010, 10:43 PM
Ahhh, you're resorting to Stalin's old tricks. Anyone who disagrees with you must be insane. Obviously that means you are a Commie!:D

Not true. You tried to make the trial fit our system but you left out the correct, probable conclusion. The attorney argued he was "clinically paranoid" and the jury downgraded the charge in the penalty phase. I simply pointed out how the case would be handled on this side of the pond.

I was just trying to make your analogy technically correct.

Eric

YardleyLabs
01-10-2010, 07:35 AM
Not true. You tried to make the trial fit our system but you left out the correct, probable conclusion. The attorney argued he was "clinically paranoid" and the jury downgraded the charge in the penalty phase. I simply pointed out how the case would be handled on this side of the pond.

I was just trying to make your analogy technically correct.

Eric
My mistake. I thought you were making the insanity finding specific to me as a general comment on my politics. I guess the paranoia shoe fits.:D:D

pat addis
01-10-2010, 07:58 AM
he should have lived in texas

dnf777
01-10-2010, 09:29 AM
he should have lived in texas

Ironically, I've found Texas very lagging in gun rights. Having lived the major portion of my life in either Texas or Pennsylvania, I was surprised to find no CWP until relatively recently in Texas. Pa has for as long as I remember honored the rights of its citizens to bear arms.

We recently had a case in our small town of a retired biology teacher (who taught everyone unde the age of 50 in our town at one point) shoot and kill a crazed drunk who was trying to break in his front door, even after several warnings. The charges were filed by a nim-rod DA b/c the perp was not "inside his house" when he was shot. The 12 good citizens sitting in the jury box sent the DA packing with an aquittal after 10 minutes of deliberation.

One thing that was overlooked, was the devastation this wrought on a kind-hearted man who was forced to do something he probably never dreamed he would have to do. Kill another human being. He and his wife had to have blood and tissue cleaned off their doorstep, where they've checked their mail everyday for 50 years, and said goodbye to one another each day, and seen their kids off to school since grade school, and now grandkids. Maybe that guy was just "drunk" and acting stupid. I won't go so far as to say he got what he deserved, he probably didn't, but he sure invaded another's tranquility and home that they worked to acheive, and cast an indelible shadow on it. I only wish too, that the DA would be required to pay their legal defense bills. In the end, thank God we live where he had the means to defend himself. I'd rather hear about all this hassle, than have had to bury a former teacher and his wife.