Thanks: 
Likes: 
Dislikes: 
Scary true story
I received this in an email, I labeled it "Scary True Story" for the forum here, I hope it isn't true and hope someone can enlighten me on the details.
Comments? (Especially posters from England.)
A True Story
>
>
> I forward with only one comment as the piece speaks for itself .. be
> afraid, be very afraid because this could very well be US (pun intended)
> in the next administration ...
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> 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 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
>
> If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know.
 |
|
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by punch
Bookmarks