– it might hurt burglars!

Late news in from the UK.

"Residents in Surrey and Kent villages have been ordered by police to
remove wire mesh from their windows as burglars could be injured.
Home owners in the villages of Tandridge and Tatsfield in Surrey and
in Westerham, Brasted and Sundridge in Kent have said they are furious
that they are being branded 'criminals' for protecting their
property."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356388/Villagers-outraged-police-order-protect-garden-sheds.html#ixzz1EUI0xpLJ

At least a few people (minus our resident red coat) have a set!

On Feb 20, 9:04*am, Oren wrote:
it might hurt burglars!

Late news in from the UK.

"Residents in Surrey and Kent villages have been ordered by police to
remove wire mesh from their windows as burglars could be injured.
Home owners in the villages of Tandridge and Tatsfield in Surrey and
in Westerham, Brasted and Sundridge in Kent have said they are furious
that they are being branded 'criminals' for protecting their
property."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356388/Villagers-outraged-po...

At least a few people (minus our resident red coat) *have a set!

Part of the Bliar legacy.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 03:01:18 -0800 (PST), harry
wrote:

On Feb 20, 9:04*am, Oren wrote:
it might hurt burglars!

Late news in from the UK.

"Residents in Surrey and Kent villages have been ordered by police to
remove wire mesh from their windows as burglars could be injured.
Home owners in the villages of Tandridge and Tatsfield in Surrey and
in Westerham, Brasted and Sundridge in Kent have said they are furious
that they are being branded 'criminals' for protecting their
property."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356388/Villagers-outraged-po...

At least a few people (minus our resident red coat) *have a set!

Part of the Bliar legacy.

Now you're making stuff up. Tony wouldn't do such a thing. I bet the
Queen would though. How 'bout it...

Can you folks buy popsicles with a stick. Surely we don't want you Red
Coats to poke an eye out.

In ,
Oren spewed forth:
- it might hurt burglars!

Late news in from the UK.

"Residents in Surrey and Kent villages have been ordered by police to
remove wire mesh from their windows as burglars could be injured.
Home owners in the villages of Tandridge and Tatsfield in Surrey and
in Westerham, Brasted and Sundridge in Kent have said they are furious
that they are being branded 'criminals' for protecting their
property."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356388/Villagers-outraged-police-order-protect-garden-sheds.html#ixzz1EUI0xpLJ

At least a few people (minus our resident red coat) have a set!

on kinda the same note, I recieved this in an email

You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your
bedroom door.

Half-awake, 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 yearsbefore, 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 allegethat
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 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?

On Feb 20, 1:39*pm, "ChairMan" wrote:

*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?

They're going to take our cars?

R

On 2/20/2011 1:55 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:39 pm, wrote:

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?

They're going to take our cars?

R

Give them a few years, but yeah, eventually. Of course, they will find a
way to get gas up to five bucks a gallon, so we can't afford to drive
them anyway. Another 20-30 years, we'll all be in politically correct
glorified golf carts, and nobody will travel more than 40 miles from home.

--
aem sends...

And they will say "but, you still have the right...."

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"aemeijers" wrote in message
...

Give them a few years, but yeah, eventually. Of course, they
will find a
way to get gas up to five bucks a gallon, so we can't afford
to drive
them anyway. Another 20-30 years, we'll all be in
politically correct
glorified golf carts, and nobody will travel more than 40
miles from home.

--
aem sends...

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:44:48 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

The right to keep and bear automobiles is not recognized as
a God-given right. And the government is not restrained from
infringing the right to keep and bear automobiles. They are
a greater risk than guns.

Correct. Driving has long been declared to be a privilege, not a right.

In article ,
" wrote:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:44:48 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

The right to keep and bear automobiles is not recognized as
a God-given right. And the government is not restrained from
infringing the right to keep and bear automobiles. They are
a greater risk than guns.

Correct. Driving has long been declared to be a privilege, not a right.

Right. I mean, correct. And whenever some jackbooted nazi LEO smarts off
to me with his "In the State of California, driving is a privilege"
crap, I say, "**** you, it's a privilege in every state." That usually
simmers him down.

ChairMan wrote:

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?

Well, yeah. The authorities did exactly that in New York. And California.

Fortunately, I live in a state that does not register firearms.

On Feb 20, 4:28*pm, aemeijers wrote:
On 2/20/2011 1:55 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:39 pm, *wrote:

* 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?

They're going to take our cars?


Give them a few years, but yeah, eventually. Of course, they will find a
way to get gas up to five bucks a gallon, so we can't afford to drive
them anyway. Another 20-30 years, we'll all be in politically correct
glorified golf carts, and nobody will travel more than 40 miles from home..

Oh, a few years - okay. I wasn't sure if I should get rid of the car
now.

I find it odd how people become feisty fighting for their 'right' to
keep something they're used to, when other better choices were taken
away from them without so much as a whimper. The US had the best mass
transit system in the world, and the burgeoning auto industry
systematically set about to destroy it. Shell corporations, and all
the rest to drive mass transit into the ground and make everyone
dependent on cars. They did an excellent job.

Did you ever see the documentary, Taken For A Ride?
http://www.newday.com/reviews.lasso?...=FrBtRV9eY#580
This from the Dallas paper's review:
"By 1946, the U.S. Justice Department had begun an investigation that
led to indictments of GM and its partners for criminal antitrust
violations, and ultimately to convictions. The punishment? Each
company had to pay a $5,000 fine."

Hmmm, now why does that remind me of huge organizations gang-raping
the country's sphincter in our recent financial meltdown? Oh, right -
greed. The video is on YouTube if you want to check it out.

Gas is far above $5/gallon in Europe and their mass transit systems
actually work.

R

On 2/20/2011 10:01 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 20, 4:28 pm, wrote:
On 2/20/2011 1:55 PM, RicodJour wrote:
On Feb 20, 1:39 pm, wrote:

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?

They're going to take our cars?


Give them a few years, but yeah, eventually. Of course, they will find a
way to get gas up to five bucks a gallon, so we can't afford to drive
them anyway. Another 20-30 years, we'll all be in politically correct
glorified golf carts, and nobody will travel more than 40 miles from home.

Oh, a few years - okay. I wasn't sure if I should get rid of the car
now.

I find it odd how people become feisty fighting for their 'right' to
keep something they're used to, when other better choices were taken
away from them without so much as a whimper. The US had the best mass
transit system in the world, and the burgeoning auto industry
systematically set about to destroy it. Shell corporations, and all
the rest to drive mass transit into the ground and make everyone
dependent on cars. They did an excellent job.

Did you ever see the documentary, Taken For A Ride?
http://www.newday.com/reviews.lasso?...=FrBtRV9eY#580
This from the Dallas paper's review:
"By 1946, the U.S. Justice Department had begun an investigation that
led to indictments of GM and its partners for criminal antitrust
violations, and ultimately to convictions. The punishment? Each
company had to pay a $5,000 fine."

Hmmm, now why does that remind me of huge organizations gang-raping
the country's sphincter in our recent financial meltdown? Oh, right -
greed. The video is on YouTube if you want to check it out.

Gas is far above $5/gallon in Europe and their mass transit systems
actually work.

R

We've been through this repeatedly. 1. Europe is a hell of a lot smaller
than the US, and towns are a lot closer together. 2. Other than in the
medium to large cities, there never was that much mass transit in US.
Out here in flyover country, they did have interurbans 100 years ago,
and local bus systems, but the interurbans gave way to bus lines like
Greyhound, and the local bus systems seldom got out of the 'old city'
areas into the suburbs. (In the older eastern giant cities, the transit
spokes helped CAUSE the suburbs, and the sprawl everyone seems to
decry.) 3. Mass transit seldom, if ever, pays for itself. On a bus line
that is near-empty most runs, it would be cheaper to have free dial-up
cab service.

Disclaimer- I like mass transit, and in previous towns, used it a lot.
In this town, if the buses still ran out this far, it would take me over
an hour each way to and from work, versus 12-15 minutes driving. Ain't
gonna happen- I don't have that many years left.

2nd disclaimer- not defending the megacorps, and the games they played
to eliminate competition. Sharks do what sharks do. But if you think
similar things don't go on in oh-so-progressive Europe and elsewhere,
look again. It's always about the money. Gas isn't so expensive in
Europe because the actual cost is that high- they use it as a social
engineering tool, and a profit center. Evading income taxes is a
national tradition in much of Europe (so I've been told), and they gotta
pay for all their government programs somehow.

--
aem sends...

Lets see. So, you think that it's better to make people work
their lives around which train is running, and where the
train goes. As compared to people just jump in the car and
go where they want, when they want?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"RicodJour"
wrote in message
...

I find it odd how people become feisty fighting for their
'right' to
keep something they're used to, when other better choices
were taken
away from them without so much as a whimper. The US had the
best mass
transit system in the world, and the burgeoning auto
industry
systematically set about to destroy it. Shell corporations,
and all
the rest to drive mass transit into the ground and make
everyone
dependent on cars. They did an excellent job.

Did you ever see the documentary, Taken For A Ride?
http://www.newday.com/reviews.lasso?...=FrBtRV9eY#580
This from the Dallas paper's review:
"By 1946, the U.S. Justice Department had begun an
investigation that
led to indictments of GM and its partners for criminal
antitrust
violations, and ultimately to convictions. The punishment?
Each
company had to pay a $5,000 fine."

Hmmm, now why does that remind me of huge organizations
gang-raping
the country's sphincter in our recent financial meltdown?
Oh, right -
greed. The video is on YouTube if you want to check it out.

Gas is far above $5/gallon in Europe and their mass transit
systems
actually work.

R

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:44:48 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

The right to keep and bear automobiles is not recognized as
a God-given right. And the government is not restrained from
infringing the right to keep and bear automobiles. They are
a greater risk than guns.

Correct. Driving has long been declared to be a privilege, not a
right.


it even says so on many driver's licenses,and that's the excuse they use
for DUI roadblocks and other unconstitutional actions.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com

On Feb 20, 1:04*am, Oren wrote:
it might hurt burglars!

Late news in from the UK.

"Residents in Surrey and Kent villages have been ordered by police to
remove wire mesh from their windows as burglars could be injured.
Home owners in the villages of Tandridge and Tatsfield in Surrey and
in Westerham, Brasted and Sundridge in Kent have said they are furious
that they are being branded 'criminals' for protecting their
property."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1356388/Villagers-outraged-po...

At least a few people (minus our resident red coat) *have a set!

Not a surprise. That from a country that convicted a man for shooting
an an armed burglar inside his house in the middle of the night.

Harry K

In ,
RicodJour spewed forth:
On Feb 20, 1:39 pm, "ChairMan" wrote:

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?

They're going to take our cars?

R

What's even sadder is that's all you got from that.

In m,
HeyBub spewed forth:
ChairMan wrote:

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?

Well, yeah. The authorities did exactly that in New York. And
California.
Fortunately, I live in a state that does not register firearms.

better hope it stays that way, too

On 2/21/2011 1:48 PM, ChairMan wrote:
In ,
spewed forth:
On Feb 20, 1:39 pm, wrote:

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?

They're going to take our cars?

R

What's even sadder is that's all you got from that.


Zoom!

--
aem sends...

On Mon, 21 Feb 2011 10:34:13 -0600, Jim Yanik wrote:

" wrote in
:

On Sun, 20 Feb 2011 17:44:48 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

The right to keep and bear automobiles is not recognized as
a God-given right. And the government is not restrained from
infringing the right to keep and bear automobiles. They are
a greater risk than guns.

Correct. Driving has long been declared to be a privilege, not a
right.


it even says so on many driver's licenses,and that's the excuse they use
for DUI roadblocks and other unconstitutional actions.

Notice the way I phrased my statement.