Mississippi Gun Owners banner

1 - 20 of 31 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,197 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
just got this email. may be i posted it in the wrong place.

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
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,644 Posts
Read that the other day -- distrubing to say the least!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,647 Posts
I havn't posted in a while . . . . . .this type stuff makes me sick to my stomach, I just hope it don't ever get that bad here .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
425 Posts
I read the London papers daily until just a few weeks ago. Public outrage at Mr. Martin's sentence has gotten him released, though I don't think he got off "scot free." As I remember, it boils down to a reduction in sentence to time served.
 

·
Nocturnal Specialties
Joined
·
7,310 Posts
What guns? Remember that boating accident i told bout last month?

You know its screwed up when the bad guy gets a slap on the wrist and the victim gets life cause he put his life in harms way to defend the lives of his loved ones at all cost.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,552 Posts
This is what concerns me so much about this proposed "UN International Small Arms Treaty". Under any other circumstance, I wouldn't even see a mostly Democratic Congress approving such treason but if they could put the blame off on the "international community", who knows. That's why I pray every night that November will at least bring a little balance if not turn the tide.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
425 Posts
Just read The London Daily Mail every day for a couple of weeks. I don't understand the English tolerance for lawlessness, but I suppose it has something to do with the nanny state they have managed to build in the last 100 years. It seems that every few days there is a story about a homeowner or shopkeeper who defends family and property and ends up in jail, or at the very least tied up in the legal system for an extended period.

It's also pretty common to read about how "yobs"--juvenile hoodlums--are making life a hell on earth for entire neighborhoods, and yes, sometimes someone will do something about it and get thrown in jail. Imagine your windows being broken, your children being harassed or beaten, your car being vandalized, your sleep being interrupted every night for weeks on end--and there's nothing legal you can do about it except file a complaint.

The police appear to consider this kind of problem to be very low on their priority list--they also have a habit of giving the hoods a good talking to or filing ASBOs (Anti Social Behavior Orders), similar to the restraining orders we have, which save the lives and protect the safety of countless battered wives and stalking victims. (Sarcasm intentional.) And then there are the areas where the police are simply afraid to go.

From just my reading I have determined that people in the UK abhor violence and consider that violence is bad in every case, and every case should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. So the criminal and the victim aren't much different in the eyes of the law, apparently; it is the victim's responsibility to sit still and suffer till the police show up. If they show up.

With this kind of mindset (or national psychosis), it's no wonder that lawlessness is rampant.

Don't get me started on some of the idiotic rules they have for rescue personnel. I read of one case where a car crash survivor drowned in two feet of water only six feet from the shore of a pond because the first EMTs on the scene were prohibited from pulling him out. Doing so would be dangerous to them, and the rules said they had to wait for the proper personnel. Or the ambulance driver who wouldn't walk through an open door to get to a heart attack victim lying in plain sight on the living room floor because--hell, I don't remember the excuse, but I'm sure it was all legal and proper.

I don't worry too much about thugs. I'll leave that to my British cousins.
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Yeah its so bad we all wear bullet proof vests and don't go out after 9, we even lock ourselves in our own homes...The Scots are crazy people!
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,644 Posts
Joe S. said:
Well. Depends on who's asking. :D
OH!! Had me going there for a moment!! All mine went down when my boat capsized in the MS River -- was all I could do to get away with my life ... bet they are all now scatered between Vicksburg and the Gulf of Mexico.
 
A

·
Guest
Joined
·
0 Posts
Free_Stater said:
Just read The London Daily Mail every day for a couple of weeks. I don't understand the English tolerance for lawlessness, but I suppose it has something to do with the nanny state they have managed to build in the last 100 years. It seems that every few days there is a story about a homeowner or shopkeeper who defends family and property and ends up in jail, or at the very least tied up in the legal system for an extended period.

It's also pretty common to read about how "yobs"--juvenile hoodlums--are making life a hell on earth for entire neighborhoods, and yes, sometimes someone will do something about it and get thrown in jail. Imagine your windows being broken, your children being harassed or beaten, your car being vandalized, your sleep being interrupted every night for weeks on end--and there's nothing legal you can do about it except file a complaint.

The police appear to consider this kind of problem to be very low on their priority list--they also have a habit of giving the hoods a good talking to or filing ASBOs (Anti Social Behavior Orders), similar to the restraining orders we have, which save the lives and protect the safety of countless battered wives and stalking victims. (Sarcasm intentional.) And then there are the areas where the police are simply afraid to go.

From just my reading I have determined that people in the UK abhor violence and consider that violence is bad in every case, and every case should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. So the criminal and the victim aren't much different in the eyes of the law, apparently; it is the victim's responsibility to sit still and suffer till the police show up. If they show up.

With this kind of mindset (or national psychosis), it's no wonder that lawlessness is rampant.

Don't get me started on some of the idiotic rules they have for rescue personnel. I read of one case where a car crash survivor drowned in two feet of water only six feet from the shore of a pond because the first EMTs on the scene were prohibited from pulling him out. Doing so would be dangerous to them, and the rules said they had to wait for the proper personnel. Or the ambulance driver who wouldn't walk through an open door to get to a heart attack victim lying in plain sight on the living room floor because--hell, I don't remember the excuse, but I'm sure it was all legal and proper.

I don't worry too much about thugs. I'll leave that to my British cousins.
Well you seem to know everything about the laws and crime here from what you have read. Complete warzone here eh.

The US must be a very violent place, full of gun toting lawless men and women, gangs, drugs, schools, churches, malls are not safe because of crazy gunmen. Yep the media is 100% correct.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
21,644 Posts
remgirl said:
..The US must be a very violent place, full of gun toting lawless men and women, gangs, drugs, schools, churches, malls are not safe because of crazy gunmen. Yep the media is 100% correct.
... yea, and most of the world actually believes it. I do not think that the members of this board put too much stock in what the media says - we know that most have their agenda and political preferences. I can see it two ways; 1) lawlessness -- I need a gun for my protection and the protection of my familily and property; 2) no lawlessness - all gun owners are outstanding responsible citizens. Either way, I will own a gun!!
 
1 - 20 of 31 Posts
Top