The Shotgun – A True Story of Gun Control

The Shotgun – A True Story of Gun Control

by TheLasersShadow

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 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? Kind of 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.

Gun Laws that are being proposed in America will eventually cause the same effect here!

Federal Judge OKs Installation of Surveillance Cameras Without a Warrant

I guess private property isn’t really private after-all.  This is the epitome of BIG BROTHER!!!  This stems from another drug case, which along with “terrorism” cases seem to take our constitutional protections and throw them out the window.

Federal Judge OKs Installation of Surveillance Cameras Without a Warrant

On October 29, a federal district court judge ruled that police can enter onto privately owned property and install secret surveillance cameras without a warrant.

The judge did set forth a few guidelines that must be followed before such activity would be permissible, but the fact that such a scenario is accepted as constitutional by a federal judge is a serious setback for privacy and for the Fourth Amendment.

The Fourth Amendment guarantees:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

link to full article

Ron Paul On Dark Knight Shooting: Absolute Safety Means Absolute Despotism

Security and Self-Governance
by Ron Paul


The senseless and horrific killings last week at a movie theater in Colorado reminded Americans that life is fragile and beautiful, and we should not take family, friends, and loved ones for granted. Our prayers go out to the injured victims and the families of those killed. As a nation we should use this terrible event to come together with the resolve to create a society that better values life.

We should also face the sober reality that government cannot protect us from all possible harm. No matter how many laws we pass, no matter how many police or federal agents we put on the streets, no matter how routinely we monitor internet communications, a determined individual or group can still cause great harm. We as individuals are responsible for our safety and the safety of our families.

Furthermore, it is the role of civil society rather than government to build a culture of responsible, peaceful, productive individuals. Government cannot mandate morality or instill hope in troubled individuals. External controls on our behavior imposed by government through laws, police, and jails usually apply only after a terrible crime has occurred.

Internal self governance, by contrast, is a much more powerful regulator of human behavior than any law. This self-governance must be developed from birth, first by parents but later also through the positive influence of relatives and adult role models. Beyond childhood, character development can occur through religious, civic, and social institutions. Ultimately, self-governance cannot be developed without an underlying foundation of morality.

Government, however, is not a moral actor. The state should protect our rights, but it cannot develop our character. Whenever terrible crimes occur, many Americans understandably demand that government “do something” to prevent similar crimes in the future. But this reflexive impulse almost always leads to bad laws and the loss of liberty.

Do we really want to live in a world of police checkpoints, surveillance cameras, and metal detectors? Do we really believe government can provide total security? Do we want to involuntarily commit every disaffected, disturbed, or alienated person who fantasizes about violence? Or can we accept that liberty is more important than the illusion of state-provided security?

Freedom is not defined by safety. Freedom is defined by the ability of citizens to live without government interference. Government cannot create a world without risks, nor would we really wish to live in such a fictional place. Only a totalitarian society would even claim absolute safety as a worthy ideal, because it would require total state control over its citizens’ lives. Liberty has meaning only if we still believe in it when terrible things happen and a false government security blanket beckons.

Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.

UN Small Arms Treaty Negotiations Underway – This is TREASON!

Below is info from the NRA regarding the attempt at stealing away your 2nd Amendment Rights by Team Obama.  Since OPERATION FAST AND FURIOUS did not work, this UN Small Arms Treaty is another attempt at making you a slave.

Here is an NRA link to 5 videos that you need to see about this issue: U.N. ARMS TRADE TREATY

http://www.nraila.org/legislation/federal-legislation/2012/un-arms-trade-treaty-negotiations-underway.aspx?s=&st=&ps=

Below is clipped from last Fridays update, (link above),  from the NRA on the first week of the United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty discussions currently underway that is supported by Team BHO…NRA provides a hot link in last sentence to a “Write Your Representatives” tool.

…”As we reported last week, for nearly 20 years, the NRA has fought tirelessly to oppose any United Nations effort to undermine the constitutional rights of law-abiding American gun owners.  That fight has grown more intense lately, as the U.N. and global gun banners have markedly stepped up their attack on our Second Amendment freedoms by including civilian arms in the proposed Arms Trade Treaty.

As called for in a resolution adopted by the U.N. General Assembly in 2009, a conference began this week in New York City to draft the treaty’s language.  The United Nations Conference on the Arms Trade Treaty is one of the most serious threats to American gun owners in decades.

The NRA will continue to maintain a strong presence at the ATT meeting, which will run through July 27.  And we will continue to champion the position that any ATT must in no way impact gun owners’ rights.

As we await the conclusion of the meeting, please be sure to contact your U.S. Senators and urge them to strongly oppose any U.N. treaty that in any way diminishes our constitutional rights.

You can find contact information for your U.S. Senators by using the “Write Your Representatives” tool at www.NRAILA.org.  You may also contact your Senators by phone at (202) 224-3121”…

Chuck Baldwin – Update On NDAA And Drones Flying Over The US

In a stunning upset for the Obama administration and big-government zealots in general, a federal judge in New York has issued an injunction against the citizen detention portion of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA). Bob Unruh at World Net Daily has the story.

“A district-court judge has suspended enforcement of a law that could strip U.S. citizens of their civil rights and allow indefinite detention of individuals President Obama believes to be in support of terror.

“The Obama administration has refused to ensure that the First Amendment rights of authors and writers who express contrary positions or report on terror group activities are protected under his new National Defense Authorization Act.

“Targeted in the stunning ruling from U.S. District Judge Katherine B. Forrest of New York was Paragraph 1021 of the NDAA, which Obama signed into law last Dec. 31. The vague provision appears to allow for the suspension of civil rights for, and indefinite detention of, those individuals targeted by the president as being in support of terror.

“Virginia already has passed a law that states it will not cooperate with such detentions, and several local jurisdictions have done the same. Arizona, Rhode Island, Maryland, Oklahoma, Tennessee and Washington also have reviewed such plans.

“The case was before Forrest on a request for a temporary restraining order. The case was brought on behalf of Christopher Hedges, Daniel Ellsberg, Jennifer Bolen, Noam Chomsky, Alex O’Brien, Kai Warg All, Brigitta Jonsottir and the group U.S. Day of Rage. Many of the plaintiffs are authors or reporters who stated that the threat of indefinite detention by the U.S. military already had altered their activities.

“Constitutional expert Herb Titus filed a friend-of-the-court brief on behalf of the sponsor of the Virginia law, Delegate Bob Marshall, and others.

“Titus, an attorney with William J. Olson, P.C., told WND that the judge’s decision to grant a preliminary injunction halting enforcement of paragraph 1021 ‘affirms the constitutional position taken by Delegate Marshall is correct.’

“The impact is that ‘the statute does not have sufficient constitutional guidelines to govern the discretion of the president in making a decision whether to hold someone in indefinite military detention,’ Titus said.

“The judge noted that the law doesn’t have a requirement that there be any knowledge that an act is prohibited before a detention, he said. The judge also said the law is vague, and she appeared to be disturbed that the administration lawyers refused to answer her questions.

“The opinion underscores ‘the arrogance of the current regime, in that they will not answer questions that they ought to answer to a judge because they don’t think they have to,’ Titus said.”

Unruh went on to say, “The brief was on behalf of Marshall and other individuals and organizations including the United States Justice Foundation, Downsize DC Foundation, Institute on the Constitution, Gun Owners of America, Western Center for Journalism, the Tenth Amendment Center and Pastor Chuck Baldwin [yours truly].”

As an aside, was I the only pastor in America to be included as an amici in this brief? Let me challenge readers, the next time you go to church, ask your pastor what he is doing or what he would do to prevent military personnel from taking you off to a military prison without an arrest warrant, without issuing Miranda, without telling you why you are being seized, without allowing you access to an attorney, without recognizing that you have any constitutional rights, without any requirement to release you, or even without any requirement to keep you in the United States of America for a trial or judicial proceeding. I challenge you: ask him! And if his answer is something like, “The Lord will take care of you,” or “That could never happen in the United States,” what in the name of liberty are you doing attending that church?

See Unruh’s report at:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/obama-citizen-detention-plan-in-trouble/

Now, I wonder how many of these pseudo-conservative talking heads at FOX News, as well as the myriads of local reporters and journalists throughout the country, will at least be honest enough to admit that there was substantial reason to be concerned about the citizen detention provision of the NDAA? Ever since NDAA was signed into law, these phony guardians of liberty have been pooh-poohing the warnings that many of us columnists and independent journalists have been issuing. Now, a federal judge has also recognized the threat posed to our constitutional liberties by this provision of the NDAA, and has issued an injunction against it.

That’s the good news. The bad news is the US House of Representatives defeated an amendment that would have repealed the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA. The Tenth Amendment Center covers the story.

“In a shameful display of disregard for the Constitution and for liberty, on Friday, the House of Representatives voted to perpetuate the president’s power to indefinitely detain American citizens.

“By a vote of 238-182, members of Congress rejected the amendment offered by Representatives Adam Smith (D-Washington) and Justin Amash (R-Michigan) that would have repealed the indefinite detention provision passed overwhelmingly last year as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) of 2012.

“The Fiscal Year 2013 NDAA retains the indefinite detention provisions, as well as the section permitting prisoners to be transferred from civilian jurisdiction to the custody of the military.

“‘The frightening thing here is that the government is claiming the power under the Afghanistan authorization for use of military force as a justification for entering American homes to grab people, indefinitely detain them and not give them a charge or trial,’ Representative Amash said during House debate.”

The report goes on to say, “Each of these freedom-phobes [the congressmen who voted to keep the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA] invoked the specter of terror (in one way or another: ‘terrorist,’ ‘al-Qaeda,’ ‘enemies’) to justify the abolition of constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties.

“Seemingly, those promoting these provisions would offer Americans as sacrifices on the altar of safety, the fires of which are fed by the kindling of the Constitution.”

Hear! Hear!

The report astutely includes this warning from “The Father of The US Constitution,” James Madison: “It is a universal truth that the loss of liberty at home is to be charged to the provisions against danger, real or pretended, from abroad.”

Oh! Take a guess as to who was the only candidate for President who supported the Smith-Amash amendment to repeal the indefinite detention provision of the NDAA? You got it: Congressman Ron Paul.

See the Tenth Amendment Center report at:

http://tinyurl.com/7eklrp4

This goes to prove that sometimes our enemies are not the courts; sometimes our enemies are the legislatures of this country. This was the case in the aforementioned actions. So, now we have a federal court and the US Congress (allied by the White House) in conflict. It’s going to get very interesting!

And speaking of how the legislatures are often the ones inflicting more and more tyranny upon the US citizenry, try this report on for size:

“The federal government is moving quickly to open the skies over America to drones–both for commercial and government purposes–and respected Washington Post and Fox News commentator Charles Krauthammer is forecasting ‘rifles aimed at the sky all across America.’

“The comments from Krauthammer, who won the Pulitzer Prize for commentary in 1987 after serving as a speechwriter for Vice President Walter Mondale and then beginning his journalism career at The New Republic, were on ‘Special Report’ with Bret Baier.

“‘I would predict, I am not encouraging, but I predict the first guy who uses a Second Amendment weapon to bring a drone down that’s been hovering over his house is going to be a folk hero in this country,’ Krauthammer said.

“The conversation arose as the federal government announced it is beginning to allow public safety agencies to fly unmanned aircraft–drones–with fewer and fewer restrictions.

“According to yesterday’s report from Bloomberg, police, fire and other government agencies now are being allowed to fly drones weighing as much as 25 pounds without special approvals previously needed.

“The Federal Aviation Administration said on its website that the move was an interim step until the agency finishes rules that will open the door for commercial operation of drones, as well as those uses for government purposes.

“Congress has adopted the position of encouraging more drone flights, with the ‘goal of adapting technology used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan.’”

See the report at:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/05/feds-clearing-way-for-drones-over-your-house/

There you have it, folks. Your federal government–along with numerous local and State police agencies–is preparing to use instruments of war against the citizens of the United States. And numerous local and State police agencies are standing in line to participate. I ask you, do the US Congress, the FAA, and our local and State authorities plan to arm these drones with more than surveillance cameras (as if that’s not bad enough)? Should we expect that the drones that will be flying over our neighborhoods would be armed with machine guns and missiles? That’s the “technology used by the military in Iraq and Afghanistan,” after all.

What is wrong with the American people? What is wrong with our representatives? What is wrong with our State legislators? What is wrong with our local and State police agencies? What is wrong with our pastors and churches? What is wrong with our reporters and journalists? Are they THAT blind? Do they want a paycheck THAT badly? Are they THAT willing to allow this free republic to be thrown into the trash bin of history, only to be replaced with a giant Police State? Are we THAT ignorant of history? Is THAT really where we are?

Ladies and gentlemen, the emerging police state is the foremost issue confronting the people of the United States today! And on this issue, the labels Democrat and Republican mean absolutely nothing! Nothing! If the voters of this country do not awaken quickly to what is going on in front of their very eyes, it won’t matter to a tinker’s dam which party or which candidate is put into office. If we do not have the right to live in privacy and peace, all of the other rights we talk about mean absolutely nothing!

*If you appreciate this column and want to help me distribute these editorial opinions to an ever-growing audience, donations may now be made by credit card, check, or Money Order. Use this link:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com/home/?page_id=19

And please visit my web site for past columns and much more at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

© Chuck Baldwin

Bill Allows IRS To Revoke Second Amendment Rights By Stealth / Vote “NO” on CISPA

Bill Allows IRS To Revoke Second Amendment Rights By Stealth

This bill has passed the U.S. Senate and maybe voted on by the U.S. House of Representatives this Friday.  Contact your congressional representatives and tell them to vote “NO” on  bill S. 1813.

Congress Set to Invade Your Privacy Again

On Thursday, Congress is scheduled to begin consideration of H.R. 3523, the “Cyber Intelligence Sharing and Protection Act of 2011” (CISPA). This bill is the next great threat to our privacy over the Internet, but unlike the fight against SOPA and PIPA, Internet giants like Facebook and Twitter are openly supporting CISPA.  Contact your congressional representatives and tell them to vote “NO” on H.R. 3523.

Member Name DC Phone DC FAX Contact Form
Senator Herb Kohl (D- WI) 202-224-5653 202-224-9787 http://www.kohl.senate.gov/contact.cfm
Senator Ron Johnson (R- WI) 202-224-5323 202-228-6965 http://ronjohnson.senate.gov/public/index.cfm/email-t …
Representative Paul Ryan (R – 01) 202-225-3031 202-225-3393 https://paulryanforms.house.gov/Contact/Email.htm
Representative Tammy Baldwin (D – 02) 202-225-2906 202-225-6942 https://tammybaldwin.house.gov/contact/email-me.shtml
Representative Ron Kind (D – 03) 202-225-5506 202-225-5739 https://kindforms.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=146&s …
Representative Gwen Moore (D – 04) 202-225-4572 202-225-8135 https://gwenmoore.house.gov/contact-form
Representative F. James (Jim) Sensenbrenner, Jr. (R – 05) 202-225-5101 202-225-3190 http://sensenbrenner.house.gov/email_zip.htm
Representative Tom Petri (R – 06) 202-225-2476 202-225-2356 https://petri.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
Representative Sean Duffy (R – 07) 202-225-3365 202-225-3240 https://duffy.house.gov/contact-me/email-me
Representative Reid Ribble (R – 08) 202-225-5665 202-225-5729 https://ribble.house.gov/contact-me/email-me

Is America Embracing The Communist Manifesto?

We have presented this information once before in our meetings via PowerPoint presentation.  It is good to see that other people have picked up on this issue.  We are on the verge of becoming a Communist dictatorship.  Virtually all of the planks are at some stage of implementation.

Are We Headed Toward the Constitution or the Communist Manifesto? This Breakdown Tells You

Is America Embracing the 10 Tenets of the Communist Manifesto?

Do We Have A 1st Amendment Anymore?

This bill was signed in secret by the President in March of 2012.  When we say we have all of the pieces in place for a “turn-key dictatorship”, this is further proof.  Have we become a third world nation where despots control what is seen and heard?

Let’s see who voted for this terrible piece of legislation: HR 347 Vote Tally

All of the WI Congressional Reps voted for this bill.  The U.S. Senate passed the bill by unanimous consent, so there is no record of how they voted on it.  However, all it would have took was for a Senator to object and ask for a roll call vote.

This is disgraceful!!!

Wisconsin
Yea   R   Ryan, Paul WI 1st
Yea   D   Baldwin, Tammy WI 2nd
Yea   D   Kind, Ronald “Ron” WI 3rd
Yea   D   Moore, Gwen WI 4th
Yea   R   Sensenbrenner, James WI 5th
Yea   R   Petri, Thomas “Tom” WI 6th
Yea   R   Duffy, Sean WI 7th
Yea   R   Ribble, Reid WI 8th

Keiser Report: FBI vs Gold Standard Extremists

This video provides some valuable information on the gold standard and what the government really thinks of you.  Max Keiser is acting goofy deliberately (I think).

First NDAA; Now Enemy Expatriation

by Chuck Baldwin

On the heels of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), otherwise known as the “Indefinite Detention Act,” comes another draconian bill designed to give the federal government the power to turn American citizens into enemies of the state for virtually any reason it deems necessary. Stephen D. Foster, Jr. has the story.

“Congress is considering HR 3166 and S. 1698 also known as the Enemy Expatriation Act, sponsored by Joe Lieberman (I-CT) and Charles Dent (R-PA). This bill would give the US government the power to strip Americans of their citizenship without being convicted of being ‘hostile’ against the United States. In other words, you can be stripped of your nationality for ‘engaging in, or purposefully and materially supporting, hostilities against the United States.’ Legally, the term ‘hostilities’ means any conflict subject to the laws of war but considering the fact that the War on Terror is a little ambiguous and encompassing, any action could be labeled as supporting terrorism.”

Foster goes on to say, “I hope I’m wrong, but it sounds to me like this is a loophole for indefinitely detaining Americans. Once again, you just have to be accused of supporting hostilities which could be defined any way the government sees fit. Then the government can strip your citizenship and apply the indefinite detention section of the NDAA without the benefit of a trial.”

To read the rest of the column click this link: First NDAA; Now Enemy Expatriotation