Pete:
The following is in two parts, California gun registration proposal and a
true history of what happens when a government takes away human rights to
self preservation. This has been sent to everyone from Tom Gresham to my
entire email address book. Please do likewise. When you put the two messages
together, it is one very powerful message to all who love liberty and
personal freedom.
The Democratic agenda as espoused by Al Gore will accomplish the following
and make our worst nightmares a reality. It is one of the platform planks,
"I will get all the handguns from civilian ownership" (New York 1999).
I for one fail to understand why ghetto problems are a problem for the
masses, unless the intent of government is to make the ghetto problem part
of the coverup to a centralized one world government under NATO as being
depicted by the National Rifle Association in the latest issue of National
Rifleman.
Jack
Part 1:
Stop Jack Scott's Handgun Registration & Licensing Bill!
Assemblyman Jack Scott from Pasadena has introduced AB 273 that
would create a state-run handgun licensing / registration program
Learn about the truly onerous provisions of this bill. Here's just one
example: IF AB 273 PASSES, YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO
PERIODICALLY PASS STATE-DESIGNED SHOOTING PROFICIENCY
TESTS (Cost yet to be determined). Guess what happens if you don't pass?
More details, as well as contact info for those legislators
to contact to stop this atrocity, available at...
http://NRAMembersCouncils.com/caspecial/ab273alert.shtml
Part 2:
READ CAREFULLY - A Look into the Future - Based on a True Account:
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 a weapon-it 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 choir boys. 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 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. Kinda like cars.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
security deserve neither liberty nor security." --Benjamin Franklin- 1879.
"Pete @ DPI" wrote in message
news:02877f0c.4b2ac031@usw-ex0104-028.remarq.com...
> I've posted regarding this on a few n.g.s but little response.
> (except for Agitator... like I said little response). I'm writing
> letters to everyone.
> Pete
>
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------
>
> Got questions? Get answers over the phone at Keen.com.
> Up to 100 minutes free!
> http://www.keen.com
>
|