Gun control isn’t about GUNS, it’s about CONTROL

Gun control isn’t about GUNS, it’s about CONTROL

This story has been around the block a time or 2 but it’s always worth a re-read, America needs to pay very close attention; what happened to the British and their guns can very well happen here if we don’t remove the likes of Barack Hussein Obama from office.

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 desensitised 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 side arms 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?


If you think this is an important piece, please forward the link to everyone you know.

You had better wake up, because the government (OBAMA) is doing this very same thing over here, if he can get it done.

And there are stupid people in Congress and on the street that will go right along with it.

And if we don’t remove Obama in November, all I can say is, COME AND TAKE IT!

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

7 Responses to Gun control isn’t about GUNS, it’s about CONTROL

  1. Garry_XDm says:

    Excellent story about Tony Martin in the United Kingdom… and yes, this did happen just as written… I cringe everytime I hear an American say “We should be just like Europe”… having lived there off & on for many years, I have to say “Wake up! and look at how Europe is getting on… this is not what we want for America!”
    Read about how Netherlands has now decided that multi-culturalism is a failure and are changing their actions going forward… and Netherlands is one of the most liberal / progressive thinking countries in Europe! Wow! Even they woke up to reality!!!
    Take a Stand America ~ Vote for YOUR future!!! Vote for YOUR Rights!!!
    FYI - Tony Martin was released from prison on 28 July, 2003 after serving three years.

    • TexasFred says:

      Well, I had NO idea he had been released, that is a welcome addition to the story..

      Do you know? Was he released because the dumb-asses in GB saw the error of their ways or was he released because their *life sentence* is even shorter than the ones our Black Crows hand out?

  2. Katie says:

    Last year during the riots the citizens of England were defenseless. The police explained that the rioters were in their rights and the businesses that were being looted are their property not the store owners.

    The store owners did the only thing they could. They got baseball bats and started beating the rioters to death.

    Baseball is becoming a very popular sport among shopkeepers. The police wish to confiscate baseball bats now.

    England is off its rocker.

  3. BobF says:

    I have a friend who lives in England and she and her husband have moved to another area of the country because the crime is so bad and the police refuse to do anything about it. Her car was being vandalized. She set up a video camera and got crystal clear video of the hoodlums doing it along with their faces. These were known punks and when she showed the video to the police, they said “it wasn’t clear enough in the video who they were and what they were doing”, so the police refused to take any action. Being unarmed, the cops were just plain scared of the hooligans. This is what the left wants for America. Citizens living in fear and police backing away in fear.

  4. mrchuck says:

    Texas says “put up or shut up”.
    Democraps are getting harder to find in Texas.
    I expect the blacks in Texas wish they were somewhere else,,,,like Birmingham, Atlanta, Detroit, etc.
    One fact many do not know is that when the Civil War ended, it took months and months to get the word to the people because the Texas Confederate Army never let any Union soldiers cross over the borders with the other States.
    True. The Union soldiers had to come by a Union ship thru the Gulf of Mexico, and UN-loaded at Galveston,TX.
    Then they marched North 300 miles to Dallas, TX where the Emancipation Proclamation was read,,, freeing the negro slaves.
    This took place on June 18th, 1865.
    The negroes to this day call it “Juneteenth”, and celebrate their free day at Fair Park in Dallas.
    In actuality, the negroes were freed many, many months before, but the union troops could not cross over the nearest Texas border, closest to Washington DC, but had to go around by sea.
    So Texas Fred,,,,thank you for posting!

  5. Bloviating Zeppelin says:

    You’re either a Citizen or you’re a serf.

    I am an American Citizen.

    I am NO government’s serf.


  6. OregonBuzz says:

    Fred, you’re absolutely right, the “Gun Control” movement as espoused by elected officials across the country is about nothing more than control. It is very difficult to tyrannize an armed society. That’s why our founders put the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution. I must say though, that there is a significant number of our population that are victims of what the late great Jeff Cooper defined as “hoplophobia”. This afflication is nothing more than an inordinate fear of guns, period. It is not a rational fear, that’s why it is a “phobia”. Unfortunately, the powers that be are taking advantage of this and promoting “gun control”, which we know is not possible in terms of preventing mass shootings such as have occurred in the past week. You cannot legislate mens minds.
    The sole end of the active, government sponsored demand for more “gun control” is nothing more than a concerted effort to disarm the law abiding citizens of this country. Criminals will not comply with LAWS, that’s why they are CRIMINALS.
    An armed society is very difficult to tyrannize and subjugate. I offer this quote from one of the great tyrannizers of the 20th century: “The most foolish mistake we could possibly make would be to allow the subjected people to carry arms; history shows that all conquerers who have allowed their subjected people to carry arms have prepared their own fall.” Adolf Hitler
    That being said, I still have the gut feeling that if Romney loses the election, we will have to prepare for the worst. I am not even sure that we will get to the November election without some form of Martial Law being imposed. We live in a very scary world.
    I’m 74 years old and I can’t understand what is happening to my country. Bless all and keep your powder dry.

Leave a Reply