Slingshots Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 26 Posts

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
5,197 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
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 desensitized 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
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
316 Posts
There is so much truth in this post it makes my brain hurt.

Like you said, even though media is pushing for bans on AR-15s, high cap magazines, and even ammunition, the ONLY people that will abide to this are the law abiding citizens. Leaving them defenseless against every criminal that decided to keep their guns. My family personally has made a point to buy all of our guns secondhand therefor they are not registered and can not be tracked...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,147 Posts
you're right of course but there are also a few differences here in the US...first there are over 200,000,000 privately owned guns in the US and that doesn't count all the ones out there and still working from the days before records were kept, we have a strong gun lobby and gun culture and more important a multibillion dollar gun industry and a equally large hunting industry, many western states have already shown they will not enforce this kind ban..and lets face it our federal government needs states like Texas more than Texas need them...so as history has shown there will be a lot of talk...a lot of misinformation, a lot of people pointing fingers, possibly a short term restriction on assault rifle imports and high cap mags...in the mean time sales for these items have gone through the roof putting even more weapons in the hands of private citizens... and after having spoken to a number of law enforcement people they aren't going to be knocking on any doors and asking for guns.
 

·
"Crafter"
Joined
·
2,120 Posts
Welcome to our paradox. With the removal of guns from the system the "typical,Thug/theif/goon" in the UK now carry even easier and nastier knives round so that they can wound with intention to kill and receive the sentence for an assault its shameful how many "pokings" happen daily and go un-reported as soon as a firearm becomes involved the whole country jumps to attention, I have noticed how much more respectful people from the states are toward one another perhaps this is not gun related but nether the less the UK is becoming one horrible angry little island.

take this more recent event;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2010_Northumbria_Police_manhunt
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
228 Posts
As a result the authorities use the same scare tactics to impose almost any law they wish. Usually used to mask other mess ups on their part. We can no longer have a small penknife with a locking blade. The safest blade to use and yet outlawed. Think of the whole thing as a wedge, once the thin end is allowed purchase you are done for! Air rifles have a limit of 12ftlbs here, a figure grabbed out of thin air with no thought to how that works (or doesn't) in the field. I can no longer buy an air rifle on-line and have it delivered to my home. It has to be delivered to a gun shop so they can varify my age (that's the excuse). The reallity is they will insist on my name and address before handing over my rifle (at an aditional handling cost!) so they can keep records on who owns an air rifle, ready for when they are outlawed too.
 

·
SSF Founder
Joined
·
5,225 Posts
As someone who was a recent resident of Texas, I can tell you that Texans will secede before giving up their guns, and it's probable that they would push for that if the Federal Government tries to require firearms licensing. A good portion of the population there already wants to, and this would push them over the edge. Texas is has one of the strongest econemies in the union, and it doesn't take a smart politician to figure out how bad it would be for the US if they recreated the Republic, which they can still legally do unlike any other state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
237 Posts
If I was setting up an invasion and had the time, the firearms in the hands of common men would be a big hurdle. How to get over it? Make guns unpopular by portraying every single privately held weapon as a mass killing waiting to happen. A few incidents with high profile military like weapons to fuel the fire, followed by a few more with less specialized guns would make it seem to the viewers and consumers that anyone who held onto their weapons was either a terrorist or a theft victim holding their guns for crazies to take and use.

Of course the idea of armed cops guards or soldiers hanging around in the schools really seems like a step towards the distopia too.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
There are and will be limits. The question is where to set the limits.
Nukes - no way
ICBMs - no way
SAMs - no way
Anti-tank weapons - no way
Artillery and mortars - not likely
Machine guns - not likely
Grenade launchers (like the good old M-79) - no way
RPGs - no way
Weapons designed not for self defense or for hunting, but designed specifically to kill large numbers of humans - this is the area under debate
Hunting rifles, shotguns, most pistols, bows, slingshots, so far as I know, these haven't been challenged and they are so pervasive (I have most), there is absolutely no chance I will lose my guns, despite the fact that I am not a part of a well-regulated militia.

The fear mongering boils down to money. A MOH Marine from WWI, warned of the military industrial complex. It still exists and its most vocal advocate is the NRA. It is always about the money.

Personally, I sleep easy, and this old Marine fears a wannabe warrior Barney Fife type, just itching to mete out vigilante justice, than I fear some loser, demented gang-banger trying to take me down. My retired policeman brother, like many of his kind, says that academy graduates and many policemen with several years experience still don't exercise good judgment regarding the use of lethal force.

I focus on where is a reasonable place to set the boundaries, and where the money is influencing the debate. Debate is necessary and good.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
Yeah, my brother always carried when "off-duty". It really was an effective means of increasing the effective manpower. Not sure his wife and kids were always happy with that, but I think that the public gets more "bang" for the buck.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
502 Posts
I wanted to post something so bad but realized it would start a debate/flaming so forget it. All I'll say is support and become a member of the nra..
 
  • Like
Reactions: Griffon

·
Banned
Joined
·
10,020 Posts
I can't reasonably discuss this topic; I begin frothing at the mouth & rant viciously, until my bp jumps about 40mmhg (no joke). I also live in New York, & must for at least the next five years. All I can say is I agree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
330 Posts
This topic can't be rationally debated. Nobody can even agree upon what is meant by "gun control." To some, any restrictions on weapons at all is gun control, including fully automatic machine guns, SAMs, RPGs, anti-tank ONTOS, and so on. To some it means something different.

Some don't want convicted felons, especially violent offenders, and certifiably nutty people to be able to purchase weapons. Some feel that such constraints would somehow lead to a communist takeover.

The views are so polarized and strong that it is pointless to have this discussion.

Some of my views derive from a 1935 book by Major General Smedley Butler, a two-time MOH recipient and every Marine's hero. The book is "War is a Racket."
 
1 - 20 of 26 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top