Author Topic: Warning...  (Read 6863 times)

Teresa Heilevang

  • The "Other Halloway"
  • Global Moderator
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3639
  • Don't make me call the flying monkeys! DRTV Ranger
    • The Perfect Touch
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Warning...
« on: November 26, 2008, 07:07:45 PM »
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 i n 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 street s 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 t hat 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
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.

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
"Well Behaved Women Rarely Make History ! "
 

Dharmaeye

  • Guest
Re: Warning...
« Reply #1 on: November 26, 2008, 08:04:01 PM »
A thought crossed my mind. We must all do jury duty and, without mentioning it, never convict anyone defending themselves. This would have to be done without anyone knowing your postion.

tombogan03884

  • Guest
Re: Warning...
« Reply #2 on: November 26, 2008, 08:28:26 PM »
A thought crossed my mind. We must all do jury duty and, without mentioning it, never convict anyone defending themselves. This would have to be done without anyone knowing your postion.

That's a cowards answer ! We must get off our gutless asses to make sure these laws are not passed in America.
I have previously stated in this forum that Gun owners don't have guts enough to fight politicians with politics. Not so much as a comment from any one, are you all so far gone that you will not even react to being called cowards ? Are you sitting fat, and comfy, blatting about "your cold dead hands" when you will not even sacrifice a day off work to attend legislative hearing's (this with many if not all, having vacation time, personal time, and sick days.).
Freedom riders were KILLED, Blacks faced lynching simply to vote, but it's different for gun owners, they prefer to fantasize about revolution, while they lack the guts to risk a misdemeanor charge of public nuisance or disorderly conduct by picketing anti gun propaganda spewing media outlets.
Do you think it's enough to send $35 to NRA and bury guns in your yard ? If you do you DESERVE Obama.
Get the hell out of the easy chair in front of the TV ! Get down to your state house, your town hall, Your representatives house, WRITE !  papers, politicians, tell them We Vote! write to your freinds, you club news letters, magazines, pass this message. WE WILL NOT PERMIT THIS, look at gay rights, they had thousands. WE HAVE MILLIONS. MOBILIZE ! Skip a few episodes of Shooting Gallery now, so that it can still be on the air in 4 years.
Those who will not act now deserve what they get. Did we learn nothing from observing this past election ?

ericire12

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7926
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Warning...
« Reply #3 on: November 26, 2008, 08:42:18 PM »
Tom,

You are a great American!
Everything I needed to learn in life I learned from Country Music.

TAB

  • DRTV Rangers
  • Top Forum Member
  • *
  • Posts: 10213
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 102
Re: Warning...
« Reply #4 on: November 27, 2008, 12:30:24 AM »
The jury comment...

If you can't base your decision on the law and only the law, you have no place on a jury.
I always break all the clay pigeons,  some times its even with lead.

Sponsor

  • Guest
Re: Warning...
« Reply #5 on: Today at 07:09:56 AM »

Pathfinder

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 6447
  • DRTV Ranger -- NRA Life Member
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 86
Re: Warning...
« Reply #5 on: November 27, 2008, 05:41:12 AM »
Tom, I agree with eririre12. However, there are key differences between us and the Freedom Marchers and Civil Rights workers.

Except for the rich Northern liberals who went south to march and work, like the two from NYC (?) who were killed along with a local black worker, many of the marchers were poor blacks. In essence, they had nothing to lose. Most of us are people with lots of things to lose - stable families, jobs, mortgages, etc. And how many of us live in places where a misdeameanor charge could be used by a local cop, prosecutor or judge to eliminate your firearms ownership in one fell swoop. Then the burden of challenging them would fall on you - financially and time-wise.

I do agree we need to do more than just join the NRA - which is why I have been contacting my senators and rep (all 1 of him) on a number of topics. Sadly, in a red state, they are blue of blue - Dorgan, Conrad and Pomeroy. All are Dems but the y have good ratings from the NRA. That will be for nothing when compared to the power and force brought to bear by Pelosi et al on these guys. Besides, Dorgan is being viewed as a potential insider with the Obama administration, a legislative liaison of sorts.

So, are we ready to hit the streets over a gummint gun grab - face the water cannons - or the police dogs? Doubtful. And we do not want to be prepared to fight the last fight - we need to fight the fight we have been handed. Be like Patton, flexible, adaptable, using what he has to take the fight to the enemy. There will be no set piece battles, there will be thousands of skirmishes - EOs, laws to the local level (like the Pittsburgh ordinance just passed re' reporting gun thefts or become a criminal), use of the press to vilify us even further. And things I can't even think of, other than it is going to be a very long 8 years.

But through it all, we have stay united and be warriors.
"I won't be wronged, I won't be insulted, I won't be laid a hand on. I don't do this to others and I require the same from them"

J.B. Books

Solus

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8665
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 43
Re: Warning...
« Reply #6 on: November 27, 2008, 08:42:46 AM »
The jury comment...

If you can't base your decision on the law and only the law, you have no place on a jury.

TAB, it appears you have been brain washed...



The primary function of the independent juror is not, as many think, to dispense punishment to fellow citizens accused of breaking various laws, but rather to protect fellow citizens from tyrannical abuses of power by government.

http://www.fija.org/


Please visit the site. And please do not concede the rights of protection we were provided so easily.  The "Establishment" encourages citizens to believe they must base their verdict based on the law but this is not the case.  But it sure will help the establishment be sure that what ever laws they pass will be stuffed down our throats.

 


http://www.fija.org/
Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"
—Patrick Henry

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
— Daniel Webster

alfsauve

  • Semper Vigilantes
  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7602
  • DRTV Ranger
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 581
Re: Warning...
« Reply #7 on: November 27, 2008, 09:21:17 AM »
Something they don't tell you when you set on a jury, once the case is remanded to the jury, the jury is in charge.   The jury can come to whatever verdict it wants for whatever reason it wants.

Since, in many cases, to find contrary to the law or instructions will put you in a minority, you must be willing to spend hours, maybe days, trying to convince the other jurors to change to your position.  Otherwise it will result in a hung jury.

"As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia said that the jury has an "
unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial
judge...."  (from fija)

Will work for ammo
USAF MAC 437th MAW 1968-1972

Fatman

  • Top Forum Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1454
  • Liked:
  • Likes Given: 0
Re: Warning...
« Reply #8 on: November 27, 2008, 09:45:36 AM »
Something they don't tell you when you set on a jury, once the case is remanded to the jury, the jury is in charge.   The jury can come to whatever verdict it wants for whatever reason it wants.

"As recently as 1972, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the
District of Columbia said that the jury has an "
unreviewable and irreversible power... to acquit in
disregard of the instructions on the law given by the trial
judge...."  (from fija)



Yup, yup. "Jury nullification'.  The most egregious abuse of this was a trial in Baltimore quite a few years back where a murder was witnessed and testified to by at least three eye witnesses.  The jury found the murderer 'not guilty' and the reason the members gave was they didn't want to send another young black man to prison. The victim was also black, I believe. 

Sadly, this mentality may come back as Obama flat out stated the justice system should take socio-economic status into account rather than remaining blind.
Anti: I think some of you gentleman would choose to apply a gun shaped remedy to any problem or potential problem that presented itself? Your reverance (sic) for firearms is maintained with an almost religious zeal. The mind boggles! it really does...

Me: Naw, we just apply a gun-shaped remedy to those extreme life threatening situations that call for it. All the less urgent problems we're willing to discuss.

1776 Rebel

  • Guest
Re: Warning...
« Reply #9 on: November 27, 2008, 09:55:21 AM »
Jury nullification does cut both ways. But here is the cool part. Jurors are totally immune from any govt action regards what they do behind those doors. They may question your action but you can't go to jail.

 

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk