America: the Republic that we were, but no longer are

The content of this video should be taught to every student in school, beginning in grade school. It should be repeated and reinforced in high school. The study of the spectrum of government and its various forms - which indeed can be reduced to either an oligarchy or a republic - should be a mandatory class in college as well. Instead, most of us have been brainwashed into believing that we are supposed to be living in a democracy, that we should prefer to live in a democracy.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIcgE&feature=player_embedded

Robert Anson Heinlein, a great author and wise libertarian, should be mandatory reading, too. A science fiction ("speculative fiction") writer, he wrote a book called "Starship Troopers", in which the government of Earth's future placed a requirement of military service upon suffrage, the right to vote. I realize the many liberals of today abhor the military (just as the Clintons did and the Obamas do), but the full investment of one's very life in service to our country perhaps should be a requirement for the ability to cast a vote. (I would love to see it as a requirement for public office as well.) He also wrote a novel called "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress", about a time in the future when the moon is used as a penal colony, perhaps as a metaphor for Australia, but also one for the Thirteen Colonies that became America. Revolution takes place, and those residing there become free of the abuses of the government on Earth.

A very bright historian named Alexis De Tocqueville wrote a book back in the early 1830's called "Democracy in America". In this book he states that every democracy (as opposed to a Republic) has ended badly, followed by a dictatorship (actually an oligarchy, even though some of them appear to be rule by one individual). He was quite accurate, as America has become a country ruled by an elite, an elite that says we must accept laws and legislation that is written by Congress even if we don't want it, even if no one has read the full document  to know what is in it. "We need to pass it before we can know what is in it," if you accept the irrational dictates of Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

Our country was created as a republic, as noted in the famous exchange of Ben Franklin with a lady curious as to what the Constitutional Convention had settled upon as a form of government: "A republic, madam, if you can keep it." Nowhere in the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, or the Constitution is "democracy" mentioned, as  the united States (they didn't capitalize "united" back then, because the Federal government was meant to be subservient to the States and the citizens of those States) was never intended to be a democracy.

It is only in recent history - and in the revision, the perversion, of history that is taught in most of our public schools - that people have come to speak of America as a democracy, and to talk of bringing democracy to the people of other countries who suffer under repressive rule by tyrants. The old adage states that "democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner". The rights of the individual, especially his right to own property (including the fruits of his own labor, which is economic property, ever bit as real as intellectual, physical, or "real" property) are not protected in a democracy.

Look at the Kelo decision in the Supreme Court, where any property may be taken from an individual if it will benefit a federal, state, or local government to do so.

Consider also that you only rent the house you thought you bought and paid for. Even real estate which has been completely paid for can be taken from you if you fail to pay taxes upon it. Not only may you be imprisoned for failure to pay taxes (debtor's prison, anyone?), but your property can be confiscated and permanently taken from you if the taxes levied against it have not been paid. How can you be said to actually own something that some other entity can take from you for taxes owed (a minuscule fraction of the property's value) at will, or simply at the whim of government? When someone holds the paper on your debt, say for a car which has not been completely paid for, it can be repossessed by the bank or agency which has loaned you the money to buy it. Once you have completely paid for it, it cannot be repossessed. Your home and your land can be. Can you see how totally wrong that is?

Democrats in Congress (and most Republicans, for that matter) want democracy instead of a republic, because that is the way they can insure that the oligarchy, the elite, our "representatives" who all believe they are so much wiser than us and wish to make our decisions for us (i.e., they themselves), will remain in power. They all want a very strong and dominating central government which will allow them to wield the power to decide what is best for us simple folk, while it also enriches them monetarily. They have arranged it so that they are not subject to the very laws they create to control us, have arranged to be able to draw a full pension after only one term of service, and receive benefits that none but the most wealthy of our society - most of whom have actually earned their wealth - can possibly afford.

So. Do you wish to live in a democracy, where your needs can be ignored or your property taken from you at the whim of a majority - even the tiny majority of a town council, consisting of perhaps four or five people - or in a republic, were law and government properly protect your rights and property? Learn the difference here and try to choose wisely. We have already lost our Republic, but a concerted effort by enough Americans might somehow be able to turn things around and get us back to a republic, and the Rule of Law that was meant to protect each and every one of us.

H/T to WRSA and Small Dead Animals for posting the video.

islam and sexuality

A great series of videos by Ann Barnhardt on how islam deals with sexuality. It is in four parts, but they are each short and concise. They are very well done, and it doesn't take long to view all four. It is well worth your time, as this is material that everyone should know about islam and should share with everyone they know. I can't impress upon you how important these are in describing reasons why we must not let islam gain a greater foothold here in this country.

islam is a cult. It is a totalitarian political system that masquerades as a religion, but isn't one. It merely pretends to be one because that advances its agenda, which is to rule the world via Sharia law and the ravings of a pederast and murderer.

Part 1  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCfbYkXtHuA&feature=player_embedded

Part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mZPIbz-n_c&feature=player_embedded

Part 3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEKAuJewbXg&feature=player_embedded

part 4  

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfqNPJVWzpw&feature=player_embedded

Honor and the cult of islam, aka: the definition of oxymoron

I should have done as Lever Action did on his blog, and advise those few folks who visit here (less than his blog, I'm sure) that I would be away from the 'Net for a while. The "missus" and I have been traveling around the country visiting friends and family, and have not had easy access in some of the locations where we have stayed.

Currently, I am in a town near Dallas called Gun Barrel City - great name, isn't it? - visiting my best friend from high school (not to diminish my other best friend, from grade school and junior high. Sad to say, I don't really have many close friends who value my weird - if interesting - friendship. Frequent readers here probably aren't surprised ;-)

My friend, Glenn, showed me a poster which I simply had to post. We all have failings as individuals, and some cultures and societies have failures as well (we seem to be heading that way, presently), but some - such as islam - exhibit the worst features, the worst failures of human spirit possible.

Those who deny American "exceptionalism" are worse than fools. They are traitors to what our best people do to help others across the world. They betray the young men and women who place themselves in harm's way to protect the helpless. When our own President bows to those who embrace a cult which demands the death of those who do not believe as it does, he demeans both the office of the Presidency and all that America stands for. He shows himself to be a fool, or worse.

Where is the honor in using human shields, as the muslims do? In making living bombs out of their own retarded children? In stoning women to death for the crime of being raped by a male relative? In cutting off the noses and ears of young girls who have dated an unapproved boy? In causing the death of over a dozen school girls because they couldn't be allowed to leave a burning building without their burkas? In using young "beardless boys" as sex toys for the gratification of their own perverted urges?

I am quite certain that some of my relatives believe I am way out in left field on the subject of islam (yes, I refuse to capitalize it anymore, as I have been refusing to capitalize "muslim" for some time now). Understand that most of my relatives are either Roman Catholic or formerly so. They are loving, compassionate people who care about others and many of them have gone far beyond the norm in donating time and money and even their own homes, taking in foster children and adopting children. Unfortunately, though, some of them are Democrats, and end up supporting politicians who think the ends justify the means. Politicians who do not care that islam is a cult of death, not a peaceful religion that we could actually co-exist with (don't you just love the "Co-exist" bumper stickers that include the symbol for islam, which prescribes death for any muslim who converts to a different faith?)

I would hope that even left-leaning people (who still have their wits about them) could take the simple concept offered by this poster on Honor and conclude that islam is not honorable. That islam is about death, not love of our fellow humans on this earth. That islam will only permit life if that life is muslim, and is especially harsh toward those who have renounced it. That the very books (quran and haddith) that are the foundation of islam declare that lying and deception (taqqiyah), are perfectly acceptable if they advance the cause of producing a universal caliphate, a world where islam is the only permitted religion or mode of government.

Let me say it for the cheap seats:   THERE IS NO HONOR IN ISLAM.

A Culture in Regression

 My perceptions aren't especially erudite or deep, but sometimes I get a glimpse of what appears to be significant phenomena occurring in our country and our world. For some years now, the last twenty-five at least, I have been telling the few who would stand still long enough to listen that we have reached the "bread and circuses" stage of the Roman Empire, our version being Oprah and Mc D's (was Oprah on back then? I can't recall). That our society is in a decline indicated by what the majority of people across the country seem to hold dear, believe to be valuable.

Television is something I stopped watching back in 1987. At that time I had been watching cable TV in order to see the Discovery channel and one or two other channels providing educational information. When I bought a little 40 acre ranch outside of town, the choice was either satellite dish or nothing. I chose nothing, and it has remained that way since 1987. I enjoy watching videos now, but I have no connection to any form of television programming, nor do I wish any. Books and the Internet have been my mainstay, including books available on the Internet. (Speaking of which, check out Francis W. Porretto at Eternity Road and then go to smashwords.com, deactivate the adult filter, and download all of his novels. Some are free and all are cheap. He is a superb writer, very entertaining, and is a strong libertarian. He is also a religious individual, so that directs some of his writing quite strongly, but it actually enhances his work. He does not proselytize or beat a drum, merely informs some of his stories with strong Christian values and a connection to Judeo-Christian morality and philosophy.  I speak as a moral atheist who does not believe (by definition) in G-d or any "Supreme Being". Porretto's religious leanings add nicely to his stories when he displays them.

[Be advised, he is not a prude, however. His collection "A Dash of Spice" is quite erotic, done in a nice way. Perhaps not what you want your twelve-year-old to be reading, but it wouldn't be harmful if he or she stumbled across it.]

OK. This is all in service of an essay written by Fred Reed at Fred On Everything called, "A Culture in Regression". It is an excellent look at the state of our society today, with its trivialization of those things which are/were important, replaced by "social networking", immediate gratification, and a loss of manners, consideration, and true civility (not the pretend "civility" of the liberals, which is actually their insistence on censorship of anything they don't want you to say). The sorry state of education, and the fact that - if you really want to spare your children a lot of agony and wasted time (not to mention keep them from being twisted into little "progressive clones") - home schooling is almost mandatory for parents who wish to have children who are not the barbarians so many of them are these days. At one point he says,


 "If you correct a high-school teacher's grammar, she will accuse you of stultifying creativity, of racism, of insensitiviy. If you reply that had you wanted your children brought up as baboons, you would have bought baboons in the first place, she will be offended.

Home-schooling, it seems to me, becomes a towering social responsibility. I have actually seen a teacher saying that parents should not let children learn to read before they reach school. You see, it would put them out of synch with the mammalian larvae that children are now made to be. Bright children not only face enstupiation and hideous boredom in schools taught by complacent imbeciles. No. They are also encouraged to believe that stupidity is a moral imperative.

Once they begin reading a few years ahead of their grade, which commonly is at once, school becomes an obstacle to advancement. This is especially true for the very bright. To put a kid with an IQ of 150 in the same room with a barely literate affirmative-action hire clocking 85 is child abuse."


This is so true it almost beggars the imagination. The complaint I have so often heard mentioned, that children home-schooled will lack "socialization" is absurd. Would you want your children to become socialized to pre-teen sex and drug abuse? To learn how to suck up to the most popular children in their school, willing to submit to any misbehavior or indignity in order to belong, to fit in? To be willing to beat up children who don't fit the "norm" of the group they have attached themselves to?

Fred goes on to say,

"In an age of blinkered specializaton perhaps we should revive the idea of the Renaissance man. Today the phrase is quaint and almost condescending (though how do you condescend up?), arousing the mild admiration one has for a dancing dog. A time was when the cultivated could play an instrument, paint, knew something of mathematics and much of languages, traveled, could locate France, attended the opera and knew what they were attending. They wrote clearly and elegantly, this being a mark of civilization. I think of Benvenuto Cellini, born 1500, superb sculptor, professional musician, linguist, elegant writer, and good with a sword.

If there is any refuge, it is the internet. Let us make the most of it."

I have an ex-brother-in-law (thankfully for him - my sister is a total bitch) who is a modern-day Renaissance man. He was in the small group that left Xerox to start up Adobe. A software engineer with post-doctoral work in mathematics, a superb chef who demonstrates during some of the culinary conferences at the Awahnee Hotel in Yellowstone, a man who sings and plays musical instruments, does fine woodworking including furniture, builds houses for Habitat For Humanity, is very well read and quite funny. (Dr. Richard Sweet is an extremely nice man who deserved so much more than to be deceived into marrying my gold-digging, money-grubbing sister.) He is a complete gentleman, and although I don't believe he has ever wielded a sword, I would gladly have taken him in hand and introduced him to the fine art of gunnery if our friendship had been able to withstand the damage done by my sibling.

Read all of Fred's little essay, and understand that our culture truly is in decline. Short of a full sea-change in the direction we have taken (including the firing of all the socialist drones currently infesting our educational system right now, which will never happen), I am afraid we will not recover. The best we can do is attempt to better-equip our children via home schooling and teaching them the moral qualities that were once prevalent in our society. Instilling an appreciation for good manners, consideration of others, and a good work ethic - along with a hunger for the written word - will serve them well. Teach them to shoot and be able to defend themselves, and they may prosper even in these times.

Various and sundry thoughts

Tonight (this morning, as it is currently 0140 MST ?) I believe I am going to ramble a bit.

While "zoning out" (a little zen, perhaps, or dharma yoga?) at my reloading bench earlier in the evening, it occurred to me that those of us who reload are the new alchemists: turning lead into gold. Even if you don't sell your reloads (and I do not), they sure feel like gold, sitting on your shelf or in your safe. Should we be reduced to a barter economy in the not-too-distant future, they may become more valuable than gold. When food and other necessities become scarce, would you trade gold for food you need to survive? Sure. Would the fellow who has the food be willing to take gold in exchange, if it were winter and the possibility of obtaining more food was questionable? Maybe not. Ammunition that could be used to hunt and kill an elk, a moose, or a deer would be pretty valuable though, as would ammo needed to protect and defend your self and your family from marauders or gangs. So, loading hundreds of rounds of .45,.44 Mag, .40, .357, 9mm, .308, .223, and .45-70 feels even better than putting gold into the safe.

If you are a shooter, it is possible to get into reloading fairly cheaply at the start, with better equipment possible if and when you are able to spend a little more. Customizing your ammo for your own particular needs (say a hard-cast 405 grain flat nosed .45-70 bullet loaded to 1800 feet per second to deal with bear or moose in the brush) is fun, a lot less expensive than in the sporting goods store or even Walmart, and will continue to supply you when the stores don't have your ammo available (and maybe stop selling it altogether?). Learn to cast your own lead bullets and save even more. Learn how to anneal your brass cases, and make them last for many, many reloadings. Plus there are good sources for all of the specialty bullets - soft-nosed, hollow-point, full metal jacketed, etc. - that you may wish to load for self-defense, hunting, or target shooting for practice. Lots of good info on the Internet on reloading and bullet casting, and many good books on the subject are available as well, some at your local library.

Tonight I read a post by Francis W. Porretto at his web site, Eternity Road. It concerned socialism and the sort of "thinking" that goes along with leaning in that direction. One of his points, if I may restate my understanding of his point, is that even people who are otherwise conservative in outlook have gotten suckered into believing things which aren't true, but have been stated and repeated so many times - as well as being taught by left-leaning teachers and professors - that they appear reasonable to said conservative. Like "taxing the 'rich' ". At the end of his post, Francis says,

"The point of all this, of course, is that even people we think of as solid conservatives of unquestionable allegiance to Constitutional principles and the free market have adopted some socialist assumptions. All such assumptions will display the defining mark of any sociopolitical assumption: the word "should."

Watch for that little word. When a normative statement -- that is, a statement that asserts a particular condition or policy as a "should" -- is offered to you as if only a lunatic could disagree, the speaker is attempting to assert that you and he share it, and any assumptions that underlie it, beyond question.

Some normatives are completely incompatible with freedom and the prerogatives of free men. When someone with whom you agree on most specifics of public policy comes out with a clinker of that sort, inform him, as gently as possible, that he's spouting socialism. He might not understand. Indeed, he might take offense. But he's revealed a chink in his argumentative armor. If you can convey the vulnerability it imposes on him, and if he's truly a devotee of freedom, eventually he'll thank you for it. 

They who are staunch in maintaining a bedrock socialist principle as a premise are, of course, unreachable by argument. But by their premises -- their "shoulds" -- shall ye know them. It will save you the effort of arguing with them in the future."

Unfortunately, the "he'll thank you for it" isn't likely. There are a lot of folks out there who like to believe they are devotees of freedom, but simply cannot accept that some of their thought has been shaped by liberal, socialist memes. A fellow who moderated a list I was a member of for almost fourteen years took serious offense to my informing him of a socialist assumption he was making (although I tried to soften it by calling it "liberal"), and said fellow then proceeded to hold all of my posts until he had approved of their content. After his numerous complaints about my comments on a number of topics, I stopped commenting on the articles and essays I was posting. Then he decided to require me to explain, for each and every post, why the other members should or shouldn't be interested in what I was attempting to share with them. As he was requiring none of this from any other member of the list, I took the "hint" and retired. 

Francis would, I'm sure, simply say this fellow was definitely not a true devotee of freedom, but he certainly thought he was, as did some of the more vocal members of the list. I'm afraid that those who are big enough to accept the fact that some of our thinking has been warped by socialist memes are fewer than might seem likely. I experienced that myself in my belief, for a period of over twenty years, that the NRA stood for freedom, and supported the Second Amendment. It took a Russian immigrant to our shores to demonstrate to me, factually and logically, that the NRA exists simply to fund their own salaries and perquisites. When I discovered that every piece of gun control legislation since the Gun Control Act of 1968 (and actually some before that) was written with the assistance of the NRA, it woke me up to the fact that the NRA makes a living off of working with the gun control crowd in order to stimulate its members into donating large sums of money. Like two attorneys working together to bilk their divorcing clients of as much money as possible before finalizing the divorce. 

Examine some of your beliefs and assumptions from time to time in light of whether or not they truly support freedom, the rights of the individual, and the free market economics that have been responsible for all of the good years this country has experienced in the past. You might be surprised, especially when you find yourself using the word "should".

Active Shooter - don't just stand there!

An excellent article from Gabe Suarez, a combat firearms trainer known to most shooters. He has had some issues in his life, and there was talk at one time about financial ethics, but it is impossible to argue about the man's skill and the value of his training, even if you disagree with some of his specific techniques - I don't, because I don't have the knowledge or experience to question what works for him and most of those he trains.

When the Loughner shooting in Tucson took place, where a young girl and five other civilians were killed, and fourteen others wounded (oh, yeah, there was a politician involved as well, Giffords, IIRC ;-), a mail group I was a member of discussed the issues involved. One of our members questioned whether or not it would have been wise to become involved if you were armed and present. Not to put too fine a point on it, I questioned how anyone who was armed and present could not become involved. How anyone with the least bit of training (and all of us who carry should have received some training somewhere or we are fools) could stand by and not try to stop the psychopath who was shooting women and children. The induhvidual who thought this was an issue to be discussed became irate when I made that point, as if I was questioning his courage or moral compass. Well, he may have been morally challenged but he was at least bright enough to understand that I was indeed questioning his courage and moral compass.

Women and children. An imperative that has existed since we began to walk upright, I believe. At the very least, it is a biological imperative, to protect your genetic resources, your ability to pass on your genes to the human race. For many thousands of years it has also been a moral imperative, to protect those who are helpless, who need our protection. Finally, it is a function of love, as we should love our wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and our children, and by extension, the wives, mothers, daughters, sisters and children of others, and lay down our lives if necessary to keep them from mortal danger. 

Mr. Suarez uses superb logic in detailing how, when it is obvious you are not watching a gun battle between gang-bangers, or an armed dispute between a couple of deranged individuals, a moral man will do what he can to protect the helpless, by stopping the shooter. One hopes "stopping" involves terminating the scum, but if it merely involves distracting him from shooting the innocent, that is fine. Perhaps it will also, as Gabe points out, cause him to shoot himself - as these psychos often do - now, instead of after killing more people first.

One of my favorite Clancy novels is Patriot Games, in which Jack Ryan takes out some Irish (IRA?) terrorists attacking the Royal family, being wounded in the process. Yes, it is a novel, but it took Ryan only a second to get his family down and safe before he ran to do what was right. Ran toward danger, not stopping to dial 911. Now, I am not suggesting we should always run unarmed into a gun fight - although there may be a time when it is a good choice, or the only choice, or the most moral choice - but in a situation where you are armed and able to respond, not doing so is IMNSHO an act of moral cowardice. If you are concerned for your family, I understand making sure they are not in danger, or are moving away from danger, but the best way to make them safe is to stop the shooter (we are talking a single active shooter here - the dynamics change if there are two or more shooters, as in Mumbai, as protecting your family becomes much more difficult).

Gabe Suarez makes the excellent point for those who - as did several in our mail group - claim their only concern was their own family, hang the rest. Would they have wanted someone to take that stance if it was their family being targeted? Or would they have wanted anyone armed to respond and try to save their wife and/or children from being shot and killed? I think we all know the answer to that one. If someone out there wants to say, "No, don't save my family, let them die even if you have no family of your own there to protect", I am afraid I would have to call that person a liar. 

Please read the article. I am over sixty myself, and I know my eyesight isn't what it used to be, but I practice with my carry weapon at one hundred yards when I am at the range, and if I had a clear shot at that distance, I believe I could hit a man if necessary. If he were moving and not shooting, I might well attempt to get closer first, but if he were actively shooting at people, I would take the shot. Those of you who practice - as you should if you are going to carry - should try your hand at a B-27 (or B-21, 29, 30, etc.) silhouette at that range. It is life-sized, and you may be surprised at how manageable a torso shot is even at that distance.

Imagine that you are going to meet your wife and two children at your local IHOP and see a man shooting at the restaurant with an AK while you are still one hundred yards away. Think you'd take the shot? Or would you use your iPhone to contact your buddies on the Internet to ask their opinion as to what you should do? While the people in the IHOP are dialing 911 and dying (Dial 911 and Die).

As it is in England, and could be here

Billy Bob at Hell On Earth posted this and I simply had to pass it on.

No matter what your view on firearms, every rational person knows

that we possess an innate human right to defend ourselves from harm.

In England, the socialist State has legislated against that right for its subjects.

They consequently suffer extreme punishment for simply trying to protect

themselves. It could happen here.

The Shotgun

Posted by BillyBob at 5:00 PM

A friend sent me this email this morning. I felt obligated to pass it along.

Read it if you have a chance. It will make you stop and think...

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?

The guns had been registered and licensed.

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.

You had better wake up, because 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 him.