It's closer than you think...


Subject: It is now closer to reality than you think

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 sidearm 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?

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

Quite timely. This needed to be posted here.

NEVER give up.
NEVER surrender.

And the real shocker to the above story is that the surviving burglar sued (and won, I believe?) Tony Martin for PTSD.

The fucker claims that since being shot by Mr. Martin (hero! ) that he can't have normal sexual relations anymore.

I say good if any of his children grow up to assholes like their (worthless) old man.

Didn't some guy who was broken into 4 times this year get busted for putting up a barbwire fence?

here it is
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE...mp;pageId=45247
A woman who suffered a break-in robbery in which she lost some valuable antiques worth "thousands" has been told she could face a significant liability if she beefs up her home's security, and a returning robber would be injured.

"If I have got to live behind locked doors for the rest of my life, I hope the rest of my life isn't very long," the woman, who asked to remain anonymous, told the Rugby, England, Advertiser.

"But why would I want my house safe for these people? It's crazy," she said.

(Story continues below)


The woman had antiques and personal items worth "thousands" stolen from her home during her absence to attend to the needs of her brother, suffering with cancer.

The invaders smashed through a security gate and broke windows in order to get inside, police reports said.

During their investigation, Rugby police provided her with a crime-fighting booklet that discusses home security.

But she told the Advertiser when she asked about putting in a new security fence and upgrading its capabilities, she was told the laws on liability meant she risked a police investigation herself if any trespassers hurt themselves climbing it.

She had wanted to add barbed wire to the fence in order to reduce the ease with which the robbers apparently gained access to her home.

But the Warwickshire Police "Operation Impact" booklet, which gives victims information on crime-fighting, suggested she could risk a prosecution herself if someone would be hurt.

"I respect that if the postman or the gas man calls, they don't expect to hurt himself. But I was speechless – you couldn't make it up. I think these laws show we have gone soft in the head," she told the newspaper.

An investigation is continuing.

out of my cold fingers,...

I'm going to start looking for a new world to live in............my world.

If I bring lots of ammo, can I tag along?

How about we all pick a couple of states and get like minded people together and break from the Union and live in an environment where a person can defend himself and live with out crime. hmmmm........................

Live here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennesaw,_Georgia

If you have not already, please view the video in my sig line. Thank you.
1911

Wouldn't I have to marry my 1st cousin though?

Just kiddin' Kennesaw rocks.

That's some scary stuff.

I can't fathom how someone can get in trouble for a burglar getting hurt/killed while trying to break into your house and/or do you harm.

In a 9th grade class I was in, we learned about a story where a burglar broke his leg while breaking into someone's house. He sued the homeowner and won. I don't get it. It makes no sense.

I didn't really have any strong views/stances on such things at that age, but I remember that story pissing me off to no end.

It's one of those things that makes your head hurt, trying to understand it.

The English legal system is based on the criminalization of the common man. They have made self-defense all but illegal, and stripped homeowners of any right or means to defend themselves. To this end they have placed practically everyone under surveillance by erecting cameras everywhere and banned even knives. If you happen to kill someone in self-defense, and the magistrate decides it was not justified (i.e., they don't believe there was NO other option, like fleeing or merely wounding the person), you are looking at murder charges. A man's 93-year-old mother had her house broken into 3 times, and a man wanted to install barbed wire on her fence to protect her. The courts allowed it, but ONLY on the condition that he would be responsible for any injuries incurred by a criminal breaking into her house.

By their viewpoint, the common man is incompetent and basically criminal by nature. They are setting themselves up for national failure, as historically every single government that did this was eventually overthrown by revolt or the government simply collapsed due to peoples' refusal to support it. Eventually the people will no longer stand for being oppressed. Every single person I've known from England had a depressed attitude towards life that stems from their government's handling of society. This cannot last forever, as eventually it breeds anger and rebellion. England, in its current form, is doomed.

The very first my day in this country i was given an advise: if you must do it then do it but make sure by any means the intruder is dead. The reason for this - he will not testify against you in the court, your word against his . This was 16 years ago

My thoughts exactly, no one gets out alive..

TEXAS
We don't play the pity the game for bad guys and we have a good law to help us.

http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/tlodocs/80R...ml/SB00378F.htm

Don't mess with Texas.

If nobama imposes a new federal restrictive law, Taxes will have to follow.
This is not about good laws in Taxes and bad laws in New York, it about all of us, people, who they want to revoke the right to protect ourselves.
If shit hits the fan, I will give up my .22 which has no real use anyhow, but they will have to use some extensive force to take my .308 and AK

well if this all happens then i do have a solution. dont call the cops and put that shovel to good use.

[/quote]

If nobama imposes a new federal restrictive law, Taxes will have to follow.
This is not about good laws in Taxes and bad laws in New York, it about all of us, people, who they want to revoke the right to protect ourselves.
If shit hits the fan, I will give up my .22 which has no real use anyhow, but they will have to use some extensive force to take my .308 and AK
[/quote]

As long as I have my Saiga 12, I could care less. I'm selling my SKS shortly, as I really never use it. I'm stoked for the Saiga modifications to come though, hehe.

To the OP: That's a scary story for sure!
I'd prolly just beat them to death in the house, make sure they are armed, and call the law.

Two people can keep a secret, if one of them is dead...

There is only one state the has had elected officials state they would no longer have to be part of the US if 2A rights are not upheld.

Montana Secretary of State Brad Johnson spelled it out in black and white.



[HELENA MONTANA—Secretary of State Brad Johnson joined the many other Montanans who have weighed in on the DC v. Heller case currently before the U.S. Supreme Court. A letter to the editor from Johnson appeared in today’s Washington Times, urging the court to protect an individual’s right to bear arms.

“This is an important issue for Montanans,” Johnson said. “Many of Montana’s elected officials spoke out on this issue; I am proud to be among them.”

The letter can be found at this link. (third article down)

Johnson’s letter argued that Montana’s agreement with the United States to enter the union included Montana’s constitution at the time, which guaranteed the right of “any person” to bear arms. He urged the Supreme Court to uphold an individual rights interpretation of the Second Amendment, rather than a collective interpretation, as best in keeping with Montana’s Compact with the United States.

Many other elected officials around Montana have concurred in a statement of the same argument, in a bipartisan effort to defend Montanans’ individual right to keep and bear arms. The list of officials, as well as their resolution, can be found at: http://www.progunleaders.org.]



Texas may have once been it's own country.

But Montana is acting like it wants to be one.

Mixed feelings here. From one side, united we are stronger and Im in strong opposition to state separation. But on the other hand, our federal government completely forgot the fact that it supposed to work for people, not the opposite. We will be in the struggle with all this BS until a strong political leader shows on the horizon. Whatever people say, but in 4 years with good mentors and support Palin may become such individual

Alaska is an interesting state.

They make enough money from the oil they sell to Japan to not only have any state taxes but last time I was there they paid every resident $2000 a year.

Palins husband is also a member of a group that is exploring the possibility of Alaska being it's own entity and seeing if there is enough support from residents to support such a move.

Really, why should a state pay federal takes on services that state can provide on it's own for less money and not tax the people for?

Thats just financial prospective and here I absolutely agree with you.
But what if, hypothetically, Alaska goes on its own? Russia will swallow it the very next day. Its former Russian territory and they will do everything and anything to get it back. Georgia/Ossetia is a good example, and it was just the beginning. Cant even think of a possibility of having Russian strategic missiles on this continent

I'm sure Alaska will be fine. It has the only fully equipped wing of F-22 Raptors and a critical US Missile defense shield. I'm sure the Continental USA would be leasing land from Alaska due to its critical position strategically.

Besides there are enough Alaskans that would have US citizenship. (Think Russian Ossetia's) The Continental USA would still have obligations to said citizens.

It wouldn't be the first time F-22's and Tupolev bombers met.

I will place my bet on Raptor

What I wouldn't give to have seen the pilot of the Tupolev's face when he looked out the window and seen the American pilot hand signaling him to turn around.

You crack me up
Actually there hes been number of documented encounters, including one when a Tupolev attempt to land on a deck of an American carrier. I believe it was GW, but not certain. The long story short, TU-95 got too close to the carrier, a US fighter showed something to russian pilot with his hands. Russian either misunderstood or decided to play a joke and took course on landing. There is another unofficial version of the story with some details. You can visualize the hand gestures and showing butts in the rear gunner window. Russian Pacific Ocean Fleet long range bombers are all crazy but not idiots.

Agreed. If someone breaks in, I assume they mean to do me harm and their life is forfeit. Arizona law states you merely have to feel threatened. If someone is brazen enough to break into my house, I consider their presence a threat, and will take action to remove that threat.

What do you think the British gov latest move can be? You would never guess - let the criminals go free if they say "I am sorry"
Todays article in DailyMail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10...-new-plans.html

I am speechless