Furthermore, The govt. no longer works violently against its citizens (at least not the US govt.)
A gun wouldn't protect us from character assassination and the IRS, the smear campaigns by the media.
Win the minds of the public by causing them to think that any movement is marginalized and trivial and you've killed that movement. No active assassination is necessary.
A gun wouldn't protect us from character assassination and the IRS, the smear campaigns by the media.
Win the minds of the public by causing them to think that any movement is marginalized and trivial and you've killed that movement. No active assassination is necessary.
argentina not only lost a lot of brave soldiers in a struggle over a land that should rightly belong to them, but suffered a horrible humilation too, and its people nestle a long and deep, and let me say just, hatred towards british imperialism.
That's why when argentina beat england in the soccer world cup of 1986 the celebrations where massive, where one gifted soccer player, possibly THE best ever soccer player, maradona, singlehandly humiliated the british by first scoring a goal all by himself, and secondly by scoring an "illegal" goal using his hand, a thing strictly not allowed in soccer. He later said "that was the hand of god".
That's why when argentina beat england in the soccer world cup of 1986 the celebrations where massive, where one gifted soccer player, possibly THE best ever soccer player, maradona, singlehandly humiliated the british by first scoring a goal all by himself, and secondly by scoring an "illegal" goal using his hand, a thing strictly not allowed in soccer. He later said "that was the hand of god".
Kaya, I normally wear an inside the waistband holster. Even with a full sized auto it is not noticeable. Obviously you can't wear it with a shirt that is tight or will ride up on you.
If I'm wearing a more loose fitting shirt, I will put on a high riding belt holster (outside the pants). The benefits of this is it's more comfortable. The gun is more secure but quicker for me to draw. The leather fit is much better, there is a tension screw and a thumb snap.
Shoulder holsters might look good in movies but unless your a cop, wearing a jacket all day long sucks.
Ankle holsters are a bad idea altogether. Whenever I see someone with one, I ask them if they can draw it while running.
The fanny pack is for amatuers in my opinion. I love it when someone with a fanny pack the size of Texas pulls their wallet out of there back pocket. Also if you have ever tried to pull the "o shit" cord on one, you know it gets stuck half way around. You need two good pulls. Then you still have to "rip" the gun through the velcro.
Just to mention, me first carry pistol was a Glock 22. My favorite, by far, is the Glock 30. 10 rounds of 45 caliber and still pretty small overall.
I'll admit some people are sloppy about how they carry. Personally I think many of them do it on purpose. They want people to know. I got my CCW in CT. Branishing (showing your firearm in public) is not a joke in CT. If you are going to brandish it you had better have the legal right at that point to use lethal force. It is NEVER to be used to intimidate.
Read up on the laws in your state and read them often.
In CR the laws are a bit lax.
If I'm wearing a more loose fitting shirt, I will put on a high riding belt holster (outside the pants). The benefits of this is it's more comfortable. The gun is more secure but quicker for me to draw. The leather fit is much better, there is a tension screw and a thumb snap.
Shoulder holsters might look good in movies but unless your a cop, wearing a jacket all day long sucks.
Ankle holsters are a bad idea altogether. Whenever I see someone with one, I ask them if they can draw it while running.
The fanny pack is for amatuers in my opinion. I love it when someone with a fanny pack the size of Texas pulls their wallet out of there back pocket. Also if you have ever tried to pull the "o shit" cord on one, you know it gets stuck half way around. You need two good pulls. Then you still have to "rip" the gun through the velcro.
Just to mention, me first carry pistol was a Glock 22. My favorite, by far, is the Glock 30. 10 rounds of 45 caliber and still pretty small overall.
I'll admit some people are sloppy about how they carry. Personally I think many of them do it on purpose. They want people to know. I got my CCW in CT. Branishing (showing your firearm in public) is not a joke in CT. If you are going to brandish it you had better have the legal right at that point to use lethal force. It is NEVER to be used to intimidate.
Read up on the laws in your state and read them often.
In CR the laws are a bit lax.
It's stories like the one below which make my flesh creep far more than any number of children with parents too stupid to practice responsibility with their guns. This man Martin was an old man defending himself in his home and was sentenced to life in prison when he killed one of his attackers, and is being sued by the other one.
England's laws have evolved past a mere ban on guns to include a ban on most forms of personal weaponry and the right to use them. I fear that this would be the logical outgrowth of a gun ban in the States (which, btw, is probably on it's way anyway given the state of current gun law here.) The whole notion is simply sickening -- if I killed someone defending my home I would feel badly about the loss of life, but absolutely justified in the same sense that I have a hard time grieving for a person who overdoses and dies -- if he didn't want to take the risk, he shouldn't have taken the drugs; if you don't want to risk getting yourself injured or killed by an armed homeowner, don't go around breakinginto homes.
Phaedrus
No right of self-defense in Blair's barbaric Britain
by Ilana Mercer
WorldNetDaily
A British Times Literary Supplement reviewer recently took a shot at tracing the "providential themes" present in George Bush's political rhetoric. Indeed, the interminable war on "tyrants and terrorists" is laced with evangelical zeal. The American president, however, is not alone "in the redemption business."
Tony Blair fancies himself every bit the redeemer of mankind. Etched all over Blair's address to Congress was the crazed devotion to the "mystic [and, might I add, malevolent] idea of national destiny."
One particularly chilling dictate was this: "I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, 'Why me? And why us? And why America?' And the only answer is, 'Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.'"
The tyranny implied in Blair's maudlin grandiosity should be obvious.
First, the little guy back home ought to be the one calling the shots, not Messrs. Messiah and Company.
Second, before Blair joins Bush in rousing the "visionless" middle-class American from his uninspired slumber – The Great Redeemer thinks it's below contempt to harbor a civilized desire to mind one's own business and live in peace – he ought to take a look at the little guy back in England.
Tony Martin, for one, is not having a terribly tranquil time.
He was only just released from jail for the crime of defending his English liberties. Blair blathered to Congress about "the spread of freedom" being "the best security for the free," but this poor, benighted Norfolk farmer, doubtless would no more advocate the spread of British-style freedom than he would the bubonic plague.
Martin killed a career criminal by the name of Fred Barras and injured his accomplice Brendon Fearon when the two broke into the elderly man's homestead. However, Martin, who was initially convicted of murder and jailed for life, had no freedom to defend his property or his life.
The "Rights of Englishmen" – the inspiration for the American founding fathers – are no longer cool in Cool Britannia. The great system of law the English inherited, including the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which entails the right to possess arms, is in tatters. The sovereign and his elites, most of whom enjoy taxpayer-funded security details, have disarmed law-abiding Britons, who now defend themselves against the protected criminal class at their own peril.
A right that can't be defended is a right that exists only in name. In Britain there is, in effect, no right to life or property.
In Blair's Britain, proud and self-sufficient people like Martin have been broken and subdued. His self-defense plea the Crown rejected. The charge was commuted to manslaughter, however, once Martin capitulated and agreed to accept a mental diagnosis. In other words, to defend your home in Britain is to evince a paranoid personality disorder.
According to a recent U.N. study, writes Historian Joyce L. Malcolm, author of "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," "England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for 'very serious' offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed." While violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, British violence has been rising.
Since Blair's 1997 total ban on armed self-defense, things have gone from bad to worse. "You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York," avers Malcolm. "Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them ... A study found American burglars fear armed homeowners more than the police." The most dangerous burglaries – the kind that occur when people are at home – are much rarer in the U.S. ... only 13 percent, in contrast to 53 percent in England.
How far has British barbarism gone? Malcolm's evidently garden-variety accounts include the story of an elderly lady who fought off a gang of thugs "by firing a blank from a toy gun, only to be arrested for the crime of putting someone in fear with an imitation firearm."
When Eric Butler was brutally assaulted in a subway, "he unsheathed a sword blade in his walking stick and slashed" at one of his assailants. Butler was added to the lineup – he "was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon."
Tony Martin was almost denied parole. You see, Martin was not contrite for killing the creature that invaded what was supposed to be his castle. I kid you not, but apparently, in the words of a probation officer, Martin continues to be "a danger to burglars."
Having been robbed of three years and five months of his life for the crime of self-defense, Martin's ordeal is not over. The surviving ruffian, who has more than 30 convictions to his name, has been granted permission to sue his victim, even given legal aid to so do, for the injury he suffered on the "job."
The criminal protection and reinforcement program that is British justice also entails honoring Brendon Fearon's "right" to know where the old farmer will reside now that he's been released.
For this "Train of Abuses and Usurpations," Tony Blair is beneath contempt and beyond redemption.
England's laws have evolved past a mere ban on guns to include a ban on most forms of personal weaponry and the right to use them. I fear that this would be the logical outgrowth of a gun ban in the States (which, btw, is probably on it's way anyway given the state of current gun law here.) The whole notion is simply sickening -- if I killed someone defending my home I would feel badly about the loss of life, but absolutely justified in the same sense that I have a hard time grieving for a person who overdoses and dies -- if he didn't want to take the risk, he shouldn't have taken the drugs; if you don't want to risk getting yourself injured or killed by an armed homeowner, don't go around breakinginto homes.
Phaedrus
No right of self-defense in Blair's barbaric Britain
by Ilana Mercer
WorldNetDaily
A British Times Literary Supplement reviewer recently took a shot at tracing the "providential themes" present in George Bush's political rhetoric. Indeed, the interminable war on "tyrants and terrorists" is laced with evangelical zeal. The American president, however, is not alone "in the redemption business."
Tony Blair fancies himself every bit the redeemer of mankind. Etched all over Blair's address to Congress was the crazed devotion to the "mystic [and, might I add, malevolent] idea of national destiny."
One particularly chilling dictate was this: "I know out there there's a guy getting on with his life, perfectly happily, minding his own business, saying to you, the political leaders of this country, 'Why me? And why us? And why America?' And the only answer is, 'Because destiny put you in this place in history, in this moment in time, and the task is yours to do.'"
The tyranny implied in Blair's maudlin grandiosity should be obvious.
First, the little guy back home ought to be the one calling the shots, not Messrs. Messiah and Company.
Second, before Blair joins Bush in rousing the "visionless" middle-class American from his uninspired slumber – The Great Redeemer thinks it's below contempt to harbor a civilized desire to mind one's own business and live in peace – he ought to take a look at the little guy back in England.
Tony Martin, for one, is not having a terribly tranquil time.
He was only just released from jail for the crime of defending his English liberties. Blair blathered to Congress about "the spread of freedom" being "the best security for the free," but this poor, benighted Norfolk farmer, doubtless would no more advocate the spread of British-style freedom than he would the bubonic plague.
Martin killed a career criminal by the name of Fred Barras and injured his accomplice Brendon Fearon when the two broke into the elderly man's homestead. However, Martin, who was initially convicted of murder and jailed for life, had no freedom to defend his property or his life.
The "Rights of Englishmen" – the inspiration for the American founding fathers – are no longer cool in Cool Britannia. The great system of law the English inherited, including the 1689 English Bill of Rights, which entails the right to possess arms, is in tatters. The sovereign and his elites, most of whom enjoy taxpayer-funded security details, have disarmed law-abiding Britons, who now defend themselves against the protected criminal class at their own peril.
A right that can't be defended is a right that exists only in name. In Britain there is, in effect, no right to life or property.
In Blair's Britain, proud and self-sufficient people like Martin have been broken and subdued. His self-defense plea the Crown rejected. The charge was commuted to manslaughter, however, once Martin capitulated and agreed to accept a mental diagnosis. In other words, to defend your home in Britain is to evince a paranoid personality disorder.
According to a recent U.N. study, writes Historian Joyce L. Malcolm, author of "Guns and Violence: The English Experience," "England and Wales have the highest crime rate and worst record for 'very serious' offences of the 18 industrial countries surveyed." While violent crime in America has been plummeting for 10 consecutive years, British violence has been rising.
Since Blair's 1997 total ban on armed self-defense, things have gone from bad to worse. "You are now six times more likely to be mugged in London than New York," avers Malcolm. "Why? Because as common law appreciated, not only does an armed individual have the ability to protect himself or herself but criminals are less likely to attack them ... A study found American burglars fear armed homeowners more than the police." The most dangerous burglaries – the kind that occur when people are at home – are much rarer in the U.S. ... only 13 percent, in contrast to 53 percent in England.
How far has British barbarism gone? Malcolm's evidently garden-variety accounts include the story of an elderly lady who fought off a gang of thugs "by firing a blank from a toy gun, only to be arrested for the crime of putting someone in fear with an imitation firearm."
When Eric Butler was brutally assaulted in a subway, "he unsheathed a sword blade in his walking stick and slashed" at one of his assailants. Butler was added to the lineup – he "was tried and convicted of carrying an offensive weapon."
Tony Martin was almost denied parole. You see, Martin was not contrite for killing the creature that invaded what was supposed to be his castle. I kid you not, but apparently, in the words of a probation officer, Martin continues to be "a danger to burglars."
Having been robbed of three years and five months of his life for the crime of self-defense, Martin's ordeal is not over. The surviving ruffian, who has more than 30 convictions to his name, has been granted permission to sue his victim, even given legal aid to so do, for the injury he suffered on the "job."
The criminal protection and reinforcement program that is British justice also entails honoring Brendon Fearon's "right" to know where the old farmer will reside now that he's been released.
For this "Train of Abuses and Usurpations," Tony Blair is beneath contempt and beyond redemption.
A couple of replys.
The malvinas are no different from Hawaii/America/Canada.
We/you stole them off the original owners, and they aint getting them back.
Just like the Continental United States and Canada actually, no difference.
The same guys nicked all these places from the original owners, the Brits/French/Americans.
In Hawaii's case, the US did the nicking, and all in the name of pineapples.
When are you handing Hawaii back?
When are you handing Canada/the USA back?
----------------------------------------
Gun control in the UK is a good thing.
Theres enough sad nutters out there as it is.
The real problem is that people on jurys lack the guts to find the defendant not guilty in these cases. Martins connections with Right wing extremism/Nazism didn't help his case in the eyes of the jury either. Plus an attitute of zero regret/I am rambo wouldn't help his image in front of a jury.
A bit of grovelling might have saved him quite a few years, even a suspended sentence/not guilty verdict.
Then he could go home, and shoot the next scumbag that showed up.
When a bunch of peace women smashed some military jets up a while back (They were being exported to some 2bit dictatorship somewhere) they got a not guilty verdict, which really pissed the establishment off.
But they used a good defence strategy.
The power still resides in the hands of a jury.
Its never changed.
A good defence attorney and an organised strategy is the key to getting a person off.
The scumbags do it all the time, they know its the key to survival when you're in court.
-------------------------------------------
There's no doubt that the big UK cities are more dangerous nowadays.
I cant see how everyone being armed to the teeth would help.
We already have the biggest prison population in europe.
A growing gang culture is emerging too, nothing like the US tho.
Poverty is at the the back of much of it, and solutions to poverty are societys responsibility.
You make your bed, you lie in it.
[This message was edited by eek on August 07, 2003 at 07:36 AM.]
The malvinas are no different from Hawaii/America/Canada.
We/you stole them off the original owners, and they aint getting them back.
Just like the Continental United States and Canada actually, no difference.
The same guys nicked all these places from the original owners, the Brits/French/Americans.
In Hawaii's case, the US did the nicking, and all in the name of pineapples.
When are you handing Hawaii back?
When are you handing Canada/the USA back?
----------------------------------------
Gun control in the UK is a good thing.
Theres enough sad nutters out there as it is.
The real problem is that people on jurys lack the guts to find the defendant not guilty in these cases. Martins connections with Right wing extremism/Nazism didn't help his case in the eyes of the jury either. Plus an attitute of zero regret/I am rambo wouldn't help his image in front of a jury.
A bit of grovelling might have saved him quite a few years, even a suspended sentence/not guilty verdict.
Then he could go home, and shoot the next scumbag that showed up.
When a bunch of peace women smashed some military jets up a while back (They were being exported to some 2bit dictatorship somewhere) they got a not guilty verdict, which really pissed the establishment off.
But they used a good defence strategy.
The power still resides in the hands of a jury.
Its never changed.
A good defence attorney and an organised strategy is the key to getting a person off.
The scumbags do it all the time, they know its the key to survival when you're in court.
-------------------------------------------
There's no doubt that the big UK cities are more dangerous nowadays.
I cant see how everyone being armed to the teeth would help.
We already have the biggest prison population in europe.
A growing gang culture is emerging too, nothing like the US tho.
Poverty is at the the back of much of it, and solutions to poverty are societys responsibility.
You make your bed, you lie in it.
[This message was edited by eek on August 07, 2003 at 07:36 AM.]
Martin delighted to be home
Farmer Tony Martin has returned to his home in Norfolk for the first time since being freed from jail.
Martin, 58, arrived at the farm - Bleak House - at Emneth Hungate at about 0530 BST on Friday.
He said: "I'm delighted to be back home at Bleak House and particularly to have been reunited with my dog Otto after a very difficult four years.
"I now have a business to run and I'm looking forward to getting back on my combine harvester."
Martin was freed from prison after serving two-thirds of a five-year sentence for manslaughter.
In August 1999 he shot dead burglar Fred Barras, 16, and wounded the teenager's accomplice Brendan Fearon, 33, after confronting them at his isolated farmhouse late at night.
Fearon is suing for loss of earnings and compensation for injuries he sustained when Martin shot him.
But Martin is set to challenge Fearon's right to claim legal aid to sue him for compensation.
One of his supporters said he planned to counter-sue for damages.
The legal battle between Fearon and Martin is due to take place at the High Court in London next year.
Peter Sainsbury, who has campaigned for Martin since he was jailed, said it was "fantastic news" that the former prisoner was back on his farm.
He said: "I imagine he is absolutely delighted at going back after all these years.
"That is his home, his business and his life.
"He has every right to return to his home and expect the authorities to look after him. He is in his rightful place.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3134143.stm
=============================================
The place is actually crawling with Old Bill at the moment, they've got a mini-police station near his farm because this has become so high profile.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3105871.stm
Farmer Tony Martin has returned to his home in Norfolk for the first time since being freed from jail.
Martin, 58, arrived at the farm - Bleak House - at Emneth Hungate at about 0530 BST on Friday.
He said: "I'm delighted to be back home at Bleak House and particularly to have been reunited with my dog Otto after a very difficult four years.
"I now have a business to run and I'm looking forward to getting back on my combine harvester."
Martin was freed from prison after serving two-thirds of a five-year sentence for manslaughter.
In August 1999 he shot dead burglar Fred Barras, 16, and wounded the teenager's accomplice Brendan Fearon, 33, after confronting them at his isolated farmhouse late at night.
Fearon is suing for loss of earnings and compensation for injuries he sustained when Martin shot him.
But Martin is set to challenge Fearon's right to claim legal aid to sue him for compensation.
One of his supporters said he planned to counter-sue for damages.
The legal battle between Fearon and Martin is due to take place at the High Court in London next year.
Peter Sainsbury, who has campaigned for Martin since he was jailed, said it was "fantastic news" that the former prisoner was back on his farm.
He said: "I imagine he is absolutely delighted at going back after all these years.
"That is his home, his business and his life.
"He has every right to return to his home and expect the authorities to look after him. He is in his rightful place.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3134143.stm
=============================================
The place is actually crawling with Old Bill at the moment, they've got a mini-police station near his farm because this has become so high profile.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/norfolk/3105871.stm
Unbelievable!
Two punks invade a mans home - possibly with the most evil of intentions, and the taxpaying resident goes to jail for protecting himself - in his own home!!! This is the kind of hell that the liberal agenda would have us living in; where the criminal has more rights than the victim; where the courts will deny a person his or her livelyhood for an act of self preservation - all to protect the so called civil rights of the criminal - My God, what a screwed up set of ethics!
I said it before and I'll say it again - Thank you God for Charlton Heston and the NRA!
Two punks invade a mans home - possibly with the most evil of intentions, and the taxpaying resident goes to jail for protecting himself - in his own home!!! This is the kind of hell that the liberal agenda would have us living in; where the criminal has more rights than the victim; where the courts will deny a person his or her livelyhood for an act of self preservation - all to protect the so called civil rights of the criminal - My God, what a screwed up set of ethics!
I said it before and I'll say it again - Thank you God for Charlton Heston and the NRA!
