Think the government can't take your guns??? Read on. England is not the only country to do this and they are not the only country that has seen exponential increases in crime and criminal confidence!!! Just set back and do nothing and we will see this country fall into the same scenario as others. There is no way that the criminals will not have weapons!!!!! Whether they have guns, knives, or crowbars, it doesn't make any difference, you will not be able to defend yourselves against them.

Most law abiding citizens in this country who have guns are well
trained not only in how to use the gun, but when and when not to use it for self defense. It has been the law in many states that anyone wishing to have guns or hunt or target shoot must have a class before they can get a license for a handgun or a license to hunt. I took my class at Williams Gun Sight Co. in 1953. It was a volunteer class at that time, but when I hunted in Colorado I was required to give proof of a training course in gun handle. No one can tell me that the guns in this country are going to commit a crime. The crime is committed by a person and it is his/her decision to use what ever means of committing that crime.

Ask yourself where we would be today if it had not been for the armed citizen during the revolutionary war for our independence. They were not given weapons just to fight a war. Their weapons where their own!!!! It was those weapons and it was those determined men that gave us the freedom to have weapons and to live a life free of government interference. Please take some time to study what has
happened in England, Australia, South Africa and for that matter Germany during the reign of Hitler. Every time weapons were taken away their freedom and safety have suffered. Wake up American it can happen here!!!! Everyday there is some citizen or government official trying to eliminate your 2nd amendment rights!!!!!


"Every job is a self-portrait of the person who did it. Autograph your work with excellence. "Be who you are and say what you feel, because those that matter - don't mind... and those that mind - don't matter."

... 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 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. Kind of 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
=-======================
Asking our British readers, is this all true ?

Sarge



:shock:

Well, sort of. The facts have been twisted and presented in an emotional way. Take the Tony Martin case. He disturbed two burglars who ran off. As they were running away he shot them both in the back. Hardly self-defence, more like an attempted execution. That's why he was convicted. This is not the wild west, we do have laws in this country, and appropriate punishments for breaking those laws. Death is not an appropriate punishment for burglary.

At the risk of upsetting the hornets nest Sarge, ole mate, In Australia we don't have crackpots snapping & going to the school or cinema to slaughter folks. Sure, We have our fair share of baddies & I had my rifle 'bought' from me by the Gov't. I get angry too, but would I shoot a bad arse? Well not to kill. Having a gun for protection is crazy. Here, if we used it for protection we'd be in the manure for discharging it. In fact if a burglar gets beaten up by me in my house, he'd probably sue me for assault. Just last night on the news, a cop got hung out to dry because he grabbed a girl who had just 'head butted' him, by the throat & took her down in a riotous situation. She should have been crucified but it's easier to do the lawman. Crazy but true. But I know where I'd rather live. Here without guns & a few crack pots.
I think US's problem needs a big decision to get control of the gun fiasco. It happens too regular. What if it was one of yours. Either way?
Look at the super nations. They have enough nukes to blow us all to "Kingdom Come". Why?? Who comes out smelling like roses? No one. We're all like burnt meat.

Well, sort of. The facts have been twisted and presented in an emotional way. Take the Tony Martin case. He disturbed two burglars who ran off. As they were running away he shot them both in the back. Hardly self-defence, more like an attempted execution. That's why he was convicted. This is not the wild west, we do have laws in this country, and appropriate punishments for breaking those laws. Death is not an appropriate punishment for burglary.

I agree, there are appropriate laws, and death is not an appropriate punishment for burglary. However, according to the story posted by Sarge, the gentlemans neighbors had been burglarized, and some had been beat. So is a person supposed to just wait to get beat before deciding if he needs to protect himself? I disagree with this idea. When someone invades your home, they are not there to give you flowers, they are there intent on doing you harm, and a citizen should have the right to defend himself and his family, up to the use of deadly force. Laws cannot protect a citizen, they are just in place to punish those who choose to break said laws AFTER THE FACT. And what kind of country has laws that allow for tougher punishment to the victim than the criminal? Sounds like crime is the career one needs to get into in the UK, sounds profitable and like a government protected line of work!

You can use appropriate force to defend yourself, which seldom extends to deadly force. If you live in a society that has laws and a justice system, then you should live within those laws. One person breaking those laws does not give you carte blanche to break them yourself. It seems to me that a lot of people on this forum are eager for the opportunity to kill someone, using that person's lawlessness as the excuse. Perhaps they should look into their own hearts to see if they can honestly say they are any different from those they deride.

Well, sort of. The facts have been twisted and presented in an emotional way. Take the Tony Martin case. He disturbed two burglars who ran off. As they were running away he shot them both in the back. Hardly self-defence, more like an attempted execution. That's why he was convicted. This is not the wild west, we do have laws in this country, and appropriate punishments for breaking those laws. Death is not an appropriate punishment for burglary.

Great info!

I am from Canada, but spend 6 months in U.S. along RGV, Texas...see and hear lots and sometimes wish we could have protection... I may be wrong, but I think that here we can only shoot an intruder here in Canada after they rob you (and who knows what else!!) and they are outside the house... so I guess we need to shoot them and toss them out on the porch??.... go figure!!! It just makes no sense that we cannot defend ourselves and our children....no sense at all...

Also my father died (in his sleep) a few years back and of course mom called us kids and 911...well there were more police/ambulance/rescue trucks than I had seen in a long time. After a few hours and things settled down, the police asked (as my father was a retired police officer) if he had any guns. He had several as he was a hunter too. They said they would have to take them. We stepped forward and said no....as my Mom was a hunter too....:-) She was 78 years old...but still had her license and FAC....they never got the guns..

:thumbup: :-D