Where We're Headed
- Thread starter bestdefense357
- Start date
Slowpoke_Rodrigo
New member
Where We're Headed
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 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 choir boys. 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?
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 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 choir boys. 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?
Slowpoke_Rodrigo
New member
Well done, Robert.
Dennis Olson
New member
This needs to be posted over at MS.
Any volunteers? (I already have my quota for the week.)
Any volunteers? (I already have my quota for the week.)
I have a reservation about this article. While I agree with the general thrust, my understanding of the case (and my memory may be wrong) was not that the farmer was surprised, but set out to ambush the people who had been stealing from him. The way your story takes place appears to be misleading compared to my memories of the farmer's case. A fence sitter may read this, read the actual news article, and feel misled. Again, my memory might be wrong, and I don't really disagree with the message.
------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bad Kiki! No karaoke in the house!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Flynt is right. You guys stink!!!
------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bad Kiki! No karaoke in the house!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Flynt is right. You guys stink!!!
bestdefense357
New member
Martin was accused by the media, police, and the courts of vigilantism (i.e., lying in wait). His house had been broken into time and time again, and the police many times never even took his reports. It was obvious that the smalltown force didn't want to be bothered. But that gave police and the media the opportunity to claim he was waiting to kill the next burglars who entered his home. He denied it, and stated that he was surprised by the burglars, and that he shot only when he felt threatened. While some of the facts may have gotten lost in "he said/she said" media-generated obfuscation, the fact is that the homeowner felt threatened by thugs who had broken into his house.
My major point is that self-defense is no longer an option in England. This is just one of several such cases that I could have used--but this got more pubiclity, so I used it to make the point. While I told the story from Martin's viewpoint, the courts ruled against him. But the courts and the media and the police in England are prejudiced against gun owners, so I don't believe their side of the story. The fact is that criminals have open season which is why violence against persons, burglary, etc. are rising in the United Kingdom.
And if we continue down the path we're headed, in 20-30 years, self-defense in America may no longer be allowed.
Robert
My major point is that self-defense is no longer an option in England. This is just one of several such cases that I could have used--but this got more pubiclity, so I used it to make the point. While I told the story from Martin's viewpoint, the courts ruled against him. But the courts and the media and the police in England are prejudiced against gun owners, so I don't believe their side of the story. The fact is that criminals have open season which is why violence against persons, burglary, etc. are rising in the United Kingdom.
And if we continue down the path we're headed, in 20-30 years, self-defense in America may no longer be allowed.
Robert
Robert,
Thank you for the fine article!
The only point of possible disagreement I *might* have with your article is the time period of 20-30 years. With our current kakistocracy*, our Rights could be gone in half the time.
* Kakistocracy = government by the worst men [presumably men AND women] (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary)
Thank you for the fine article!
The only point of possible disagreement I *might* have with your article is the time period of 20-30 years. With our current kakistocracy*, our Rights could be gone in half the time.
* Kakistocracy = government by the worst men [presumably men AND women] (Webster's Unabridged Dictionary)
Robert
Thanks for the correction. I withdraw misgivings (and I'm sure you'll sleep better knowing that
)
take care
------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bad Kiki! No karaoke in the house!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Flynt is right. You guys stink!!!
Thanks for the correction. I withdraw misgivings (and I'm sure you'll sleep better knowing that
)take care
------------------
Rob
From the Committee to Use Proffesional Politicians as Lab Animals
-------------------------------------------------------------------
She doesn't have bad dreams because she's made of plastic...
-------------------------------------------------------------------
bad Kiki! No karaoke in the house!
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Flynt is right. You guys stink!!!
bestdefense357
New member
crobrun, thanks. Your comments were well-received, and on the mark. Since I told the story from Martin's point of view, it does leave open the possibility that an anti-gunner could claim that it is inaccurate. But I don't think we'll hear from them--they avoid self-defense issues like the plague, which will be the subject of my next article for the Sierra Times (sometime next week).
Robert
Robert
And all those filled out forms are all in one big computer at the ATF, just ready to be printed out and passed out to the field agents, who will come knocking on your door and ask you to surrender the only thing that is able to defend your family.
------------------
"Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers"
George Mason
Second Amendment lover? www.2ndamdlvr.homestead.com/home.html
Support H.R.347 Citizens Self-Defense act of 1999! Sign petition at: www.petitiononline.com/protect/petition.html
------------------
"Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers"
George Mason
Second Amendment lover? www.2ndamdlvr.homestead.com/home.html
Support H.R.347 Citizens Self-Defense act of 1999! Sign petition at: www.petitiononline.com/protect/petition.html
I think the time is now. Already there are places in America where that scenario would play out to the same end.
------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin
Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin
Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
"One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside."
Mr. Martin's first mistake.
"...he picks up the telephone to call police."
Mr. Martin's second mistake.
In an environment such as now exists in Great (sic) Britain, the concept of Shoot, Shovel and Shut UP has great cogency. After all, we are not required to incriminate ourselves, are we? (I suspect that the poor Brits have no such legal guarantee, lacking a Constitution, but then, we believe the natural right still exists even though it's not acknowledged or is abrogated in jurisprudence.)
------------------
If they take our guns, I intend to let my hair grow long and acquire the jawbone of an ass.
Mr. Martin's first mistake.
"...he picks up the telephone to call police."
Mr. Martin's second mistake.
In an environment such as now exists in Great (sic) Britain, the concept of Shoot, Shovel and Shut UP has great cogency. After all, we are not required to incriminate ourselves, are we? (I suspect that the poor Brits have no such legal guarantee, lacking a Constitution, but then, we believe the natural right still exists even though it's not acknowledged or is abrogated in jurisprudence.)
------------------
If they take our guns, I intend to let my hair grow long and acquire the jawbone of an ass.
