The RetrieverTraining.Net Forums The Retriever Academy
Total Retriever Training with Mike Lardy
Hawkeye Media Gunners Up Tritronics Outdoor Media
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 64

Thread: Since all the PC folks are on this 'place'...

  1. #1
    Senior Member Uncle Bill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Rapid City, SD
    Posts
    4,289

    Default Since all the PC folks are on this 'place'...

    I'll post this over here...but think it should be available to EVERY member of RTF. I believe all those that voted for Obama don't believe their guns are in jeopardy...that he will be too busy solving the many other problems of the nation to get involved in gun control. They obviously figure he will do a 180 in his beliefs on gun control.

    But that's beside the point. The advocates of gun control...Shumer, Feinstein, Kennedy, et al don't give a hoot what the time table is. I'm willing to bet there will be legislation proposed, diminishing the use of guns or ammo within the 1st hundred days of this administration taking office. Make no mistake, it's part of their platform.

    UB...Here's a reminder of how the socialists did it.



    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.."
    <B>


    --Samuel Adams--
    </B>

    Sorry to say, Sam...they are in the majority now. Any other suggestions?
    When the one you love becomes a memory, that memory becomes a treasure.

  2. #2
    Senior Member RedHeadedHurricane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Searcy, Arkansas
    Posts
    132

    Default

    I was actually just fixing to post this! I was going to call the thread Fact or Fiction. This is actually how it happens.
    That's right baby and I'm a CAT 5!

  3. #3
    Senior Member Bob Gutermuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Transchoptankia, DEMOCRATIC Peoples Republic of Maryland
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    It will still be better to be tried by 12 than carried by 6.

    What part of 'Shall not be infringed" do gun grabbers fail to understand.
    Bob Gutermuth
    Canvasback Chesapeakes
    ROLL TIDE!

  4. #4
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    For what it's worth, Tony Martin was released from jail in 2003 after serving 36 months of a sentence that was reduced to 5 years on appeal. Several factors contributed to his conviction. The specific gun he was using violated English laws restricting shotguns to those that hold two or fewer shell without a special permit. Tony Martin himself had a long history of mental health problems, which would have made him ineligible for gun ownership in the US. Those problems were actually part of the reason for reducing his sentence because of questions about his competency. He had also been arrested a few times. EDIT: One of the factors influencing the jury's decision was that the boy killed by Martin was shot in the back while, in the opinion of the jury, trying to flee the house. For that reason, the shooting failed the "reasonable man" test since it was unlikely that Martin would have felt that his life was being threatened by a fleeing suspect.

    While Martin once had a shotgun certificate, it was revoked after several incidents in which he threatened others with his guns, breaking windows and shooting at the vehicle of one man. His house was surrounded by booby traps which had to be cleared for the jury to see the premises safely. Martin was known to sleep in a chair in his living room fully dressed and holding his loaded shotgun in the hope of catching intruders whom he vowed repeatedly that he would kill. When the break in happened he fired several times, striking the wounded teenager with 196 pellets. Following the shooting of the two teenagers, he did not report the incident to the police but left his house. The wounded teenager dragged himself to a nearby farm and was found lying on their porch the following morning. The dead teenager was found later that day by the police and Martin was tracked down to a hotel. The surviving teenager was jailed for about the same amount of time as Martin.

    A fundamental difference between our country and almost all others is the 2nd ammendment to the Constitution guaranteeing our rights to arms. I support that ammendment but that does not mean I think other countries are necessarily wrong in their laws. However, if I were looking for a hero for gun rights I do not think I would be choosing Mr. Martin.
    Last edited by YardleyLabs; 11-30-2008 at 08:42 PM.

  5. #5
    Senior Member gsc's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Wasilla, Alaska
    Posts
    417

    Default

    So, by your assertion, the use of this incident to further strip gun owners of their rights was justified?

  6. #6
    Senior Member John Kelder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Catskill Mts. New York
    Posts
    1,810

    Default

    Truly sad Yardley fails to draw the parallel from across the pond that others plainly see . Nickels and dimes turn to quarters and 1/2 dollars .Register guns /ammo now , so they know where to look later.
    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ---LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF INFRINGED . THE FOUNDING FATHERS UNDERSTOOD GOVERNMENT GONE BAD .
    SEMPER FI . FROM MY COLD , DEAD HANDS .

    www.bashakilllabradors.com

  7. #7
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gsc View Post
    So, by your assertion, the use of this incident to further strip gun owners of their rights was justified?
    If you are talking about the Martin incident, the public furor over his conviction has actually led to parliamentary debates on ways to broaden the rights of homeowners to defend themselves without fear of prosecution in cases in burglary. Under American law, Martin would be precluded from gun ownership because of his police and mental health record. How was the incident used to "strip gun owners of their rights"?

  8. #8
    Senior Member Bob Gutermuth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Location
    Transchoptankia, DEMOCRATIC Peoples Republic of Maryland
    Posts
    3,065

    Default

    The Brits have had terribly draconian gun laws since before WWII. They have gotten even worse. During the time that Der Fuhrer was planning Operation Sealion(the invasion of Britain) the Brits were actually bumming surplus firearms from ordinary Americans because they didn't have enough weapons for the Home Guard.
    Bob Gutermuth
    Canvasback Chesapeakes
    ROLL TIDE!

  9. #9
    Senior Member YardleyLabs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Yardley, PA
    Posts
    6,639

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Kelder View Post
    Truly sad Yardley fails to draw the parallel from across the pond that others plainly see . Nickels and dimes turn to quarters and 1/2 dollars .Register guns /ammo now , so they know where to look later.
    SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED ---LOOK UP THE DEFINITION OF INFRINGED . THE FOUNDING FATHERS UNDERSTOOD GOVERNMENT GONE BAD .
    I'm not sure what parallel to draw. England has never had the commitment to private gun ownership that we have in this country. In fact, there appears to be almost unanimous agreement that the one thing they don't want is to adopt our 2nd amendment approach or anything even vaguely resembling it. Given that, how should anything in the English experience be considered to be a precursor for changes in our laws?

    A more interesting question would be what is the appropriate way to handle gun safety questions that inevitably arise in densely populated areas? From the earliest days of our country, cities such as New York and Chicago limited possession of gunpowder because of the danger of fires. Such limitations were considered a matter of public safety and were never challenged or seen as violations of 2nd amendment protections. Most cities today want increased abilities to control weapons because there is no safe way for firearms to be used safely within dense city housing. Is that a problem that should be ignored, seen as an appropriate form of population control in areas that are too crowded, or addressed in reasonable ways that recognize that there are complex interests to be balanced and that your (or my) desire to own a machine gun for personal protection is only one of those interests?

  10. #10
    Senior Member EdA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Posts
    6,852

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by John Kelder View Post
    . THE FOUNDING FATHERS UNDERSTOOD GOVERNMENT GONE BAD .
    And they understood muskets and cannons, spears and arrows, but they had no concept of machine guns, assault rifles, land mines, hand grenades, chemical, and nuclear weapons.

    Does the 2nd Amendment grant an absolute right????....or a right with certain governmental and/or societal restrictions?

    Does "the right to bear arms" have no restriction, of any kind?

    When does one's right to self protection become a detriment to society?

Similar Threads

  1. You place them
    By mostlygold in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-13-2008, 09:27 PM
  2. New Place?
    By maukster in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 04-04-2008, 11:23 AM
  3. here is a place to look
    By duckhunterdfw in forum Product Review
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-01-2007, 08:28 PM
  4. Place the mark
    By Ken Bora in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: 04-05-2007, 08:58 PM
  5. HOW TO PLACE NEW EMPLOYEES
    By Bubba in forum RTF - Retriever Training Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03-06-2007, 04:33 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •