Chimera Kennels

Here is an interesting email I recieved today...

Subject: WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!

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 arerepresented 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 sidearm's 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.

chimerakennels at 11:00PM on Jan 07, 2010

Here is an interesting email I recieved today...

 

Subject: WAKE UP AMERICA!!!!!!!!

 

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 arerepresented 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 sidearm's 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.

These laws make no sense, I feel sorry for that poor guy. A good dog would have helped I am sure, at least he would have been alarmed before the buglars could enter the house!

It makes sense if the goal isn't to protect the people, but to control them. The British empire isn't an empire anymore because one group of citizens after another took up arms and established independent governments. They are trying to hold onto what power they have left. No matter what the people have to suffer. The worst part is the media machine and propaganda have made it so the people want it. I remember years ago seeing a British protest with people calling for knife control. Because, as gun crimes when down knife crimes went up. I guess they thought criminals are only criminals because they have guns. What happens after knife control, machetes, hedge clippers, blunt objects, boards with nails in them. There are always weapons, and unless they make a law where everyone has to have their arms surgically removed, they wont stop strong arm crime by weakening the population. Besides muggers would just start kicking people.

About the dog, It's also illegal to own an aggressive dog in the UK.

I'm willing to bet if the Brittish government gave everybody with a clean criminal record a semi-automatic shotgun and a bandog, then praised people for protecting themselves and their neighbors. The criminal population would fall pretty fast, and the rest would be too scaired to try anything.

Welcome to our future, everything in effect in Britian is slowly being implimented here. If you think Homeland security and the Patriot act is stopping terrorist think again, they havent stopped one yet. These were implimented under false pretences like a terrorist threat to control us, not protect us.  I recently heard their putting an additive in gunpowder so bullets will be useless after 2 years, Ive also seen a Homeland security training video where the instructor called our founding fathers terrorist's because they opposed British rule. I see the guard dog being no differant then the gun and wount be surprised to see someone sent to jail because their dog saved them from an intruder. Regardless the media will say it was a visious pit mix, trained to kill as seen on some training video's found on your computer, and it also attacked the police so they had to put it down, while your sitting in jail as the criminal for having a deadly trained killer dog. 

You know, I have often considered removing the videos and pictures of PP work for that very reason...but since I never let my dogs loose off my property I don't, as I still feel like I shouldn't yield my God given right to defend and protect my home from criminals. 

Responsible ownership is what matters to me. Protect the innocent, but I have no interest in reducing my security in order to offer safety to a criminal.

Lee the guy above was on the same page, as am I. I would have no problem taking someones head off if they threatened my family more so than myself. This had nothing to do with the criminal but control over everyone else, its about making an example to scare everyone else into compliance. Are all your dogs registered, not sure what the local laws are where you live, would this not be the same as killing someone with an unregistered gun, could it be viewed the same way in the same situation and have the same outcome? This all seems far fetched but our liberties are slowly being taken away in the name of safety but in reality it boils down to control. That's why it is titled "Wake Up America" this is a glimps into what is slowly coming our way and the wheels are already set in motion. The patriot act gave the president power to impose martial law on everyone, surpassing any congressional vote or veto. This one thing changed our whole power structure and balance all in the name of safety.

Here's something to check out:

http://www.byronwine.com/files/1871.pdf

Hi All!

This is my first post on here.

I know that this thread is old but I couldn't help but comment. I live in Britain and I hate the direction that the government are going in.

The story at the start of this thread is just the tip of the iceberg and is one of many such cases. But that same hard line does not seem to apply to the true criminals.

Our neighbor last year was beaten half to death, in broad day light, on her own door step and her jewelry taken. The attacker got 180 hrs community service.

Only a hand full of people have the right to own shot guns and anything else is out of the question.

Even the right to own a dog is now strongly controlled. We have a dangerous dogs act which list 4 dogs and states that it is illegal to own any of the 4 or anything of 'that type'.

This basically means that anything that the police do not like the look of they can seize and destroy!!!

Anyways, sorry for the rant but just wanted to point out how lucky you guys are, you may have to worry about courts and liability's but at least you have the means in the first place to defend your family.

Very sad to hear that this guy only received community hours, it's a joke! Yes, thank God here in the US, we still have the right to own serious dogs for protection, and other means of protection. I personally prefer staying away from guns, but that's just me. If I have a very good dog in my house, I feel we can both form a team strong enough to over come an intruder by using other weapons than guns.

True protection is layered.

It starts with awareness.

Then alarm...be it electrical or a barking dog.

Then warning or force as needed.

Unfortunately, criminals often have weapons and weapons are capable of stopping a dog.

This is just one reason I believe in firearms, and why I think every law abiding citizen has the RIGHT to own them. If they chose not to, they have that right as well. I have NO ISSUES with someone that doesn't want firearms. I only have issues with people that say law abiding citizens shouldn't be allowed the right to decide for themselves.

Say firearms are illegal...and lets even pretend that we live in an imaginary world where criminals couldn't find them...how is my wife who weighs 115-125 pounds or so going to defend herself from a rapist that is even bare handed...or possibly armed with a knife. The truth is, whe would be left helpless...unless she had a dog or a gun. And in reality, since criminals can and do get firearms...well I, like Ted Nuggent, would rather see the criminal dead than the victim of the crime dead or injured.

Things have got so bad over here that if someone even feels threatened by your dog barking at them you can land up in trouble with the police.

It appears that the laws are getting written by a hand full of closed minded, suits that pass laws to pigy back on public hype.

I have a rottweiler and I know its only a matter of time until someone deams this a dangerous 'type' of dog and bans them. I have had countless numbers of people stop my wife and ask her why she has a demon dog in the same house as children.