By Robert A. Waters - 06.23.00 Robert A. Waters
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 a
weapon--it 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 intently
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 sidearms 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
------------------
It is far better to dare mighty things, though riddled with failure, than to live in the dull grey of mediocrity.
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 a
weapon--it 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 intently
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 sidearms 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
------------------
It is far better to dare mighty things, though riddled with failure, than to live in the dull grey of mediocrity.