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.
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.
“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 cr iminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on,
the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the
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.
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.
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,
citizens.
Durning the years in which the British government incr ementally
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.
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 subj ects, 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.
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.*



















1 Comment Received
January 10th, 2010 @1:29 pm
I love this article! I found the story when released to be the biggest joke I had ever heard. I got a good laugh and moved on. Thanks for showing that I could laugh again at the story.
Sorry the comment area are closed for non registered users