Saturday, June 07, 2008


This is the story of Tony Martin, a man who is now pining away in a British prison because he had the termitiy to defend himself with a firearm. What happened to him WILL happen here if this Country doesn't wake up to the threat posed by the gun control fanatics.

Once you are done watching this video report, ask yourself this question:

"Why aren't British politicians being strung up from light poles?"

This is hilarious. At Transsylvania Phoenix, read a liberal's response to the video above and then the smackdown that follows. This definately left a mark and a brown streak besides.

wstpwstp said... Tinker45, Thanks for the thoughtful response (unlike glenn and bill07407 whose coments are kind of bone headed) Yes, I am a liberal and not a gun owner. But, NOWHERE in my post, do I suggest that Americans should be denied their right to bear arms, or support the idea of the US Government confiscating guns.

Just to set the record straight. I have lots of respect for the US Constitution. The UK has the right to make their own laws, and right or wrong, thousands of people there are in favor of very strict gun laws.

I DO think that laws should exist to control access to guns and how they are used.I have no objection to a sane adult owning a gun after mastering basic gun safety and legally obtaining a license.

It's like driving a car -- cars are useful, handy tools. However, in the wrong hands, a car is a deadly weapon that can be used to kill innocent people. Driving a car requires training and a license and sanity. When cars first were popularized a drivers license was as easy to get as a fishing license -- no test, no training, no requirements. Just plunk down a few dollars and away you go.

I don't believe that there is a god given right to drive cars and that anyone who can afford to buy a car should be allowed to drive it on the public roadways without jumping through all the hoops to help ensure public safety. Same thing with airplanes, for that matter.

I don't believe that any yahoo with cash and a copy of the Constitution in his pocket has the right to buy a gun and shoot anyone he wants whenever he gets scared or angry.

It's all a trade off -- responsibility for one's actions. You get a car to take you places etc. If you get drunk or scared or angry and run over someone with that car, you must assume responsibility for your act.

Mr Martin bought his gun and got a feeling of security from it. He got scared and killed a stupid kid. Maybe he could have scared him off with a warning shot, maybe he could have been a better shot and only wounded the kid. But, he killed him and must take responsibility for his action. That's the trade off for his feeling more secure. Maybe he could have gotten a little feeling of security by buying a can of Mace instead of a gun and still have driven off the burglars.

Yes - he was the victim of a crime, but his response was death-dealing, and there's a price for that. Had these guys attacked Mr Martin with a sword or a chain saw, the law would have allowed him to take a life to defend his life. To kill another human being to defend your television set -- not so much.

In the other case I mentioned, a mental patient waltzed into the local sheriff's office and walked out with a concealed weapon permit. The Sheriff's excuse was that the mental patient didn't mention that he was a mental patient at the time. This guy ended up shooting several people at a public festival filled with thousands of innocent people. Might have been MUCH worse.

Shouldn't there be a system that actually prevents this sort of thing from happening? In the UK, a person applying for a gun permit must submit two letters from responsible members of his community vouching for the applicant's character. Maybe that's not ideal, but it would probably stopped the mental patient from arming himself so easily.My post was mostly about that crappy propaganda film. I wonder who produced it - the NRA or the NRC?

Just as an aside, in NYS you must pass a criminal history check and have THREE responsible members of the community vouch fpor your character.

jlg said... wstpwstp said, "I have no objection to a sane adult owning a gun after mastering basic gun safety and legally obtaining a license."

Let's apply that idea to a reserved right other than the one covered by the Second Amendment. Start with the First:"I have no objection to a sane adult operating a printing press after mastering basic English and legally obtaining a license to speak freely."

"I have no objection to a sane adult being religious, after attending a government-run course on tolerance, and as long as his church is legally licensed."

"I have no objection to sane adults associating together, after they have submitted their fingerprints to the FBI for background checks, informed local law enforcement that they are associating, and their group is legally licensed with the state."

Fourth?"I have no objection to sane adults maintaining their privacy, after submitting a video montage containing their daily life routine, along with a list of their possessions, to the state, and obtaining approval for keeping these things private."

Or how about the Fifth?"I have no objection to a sane adult refusing to incriminate himself of a crime, as long as he has fully informed the state of his actual state of innocence or guilt, and has legally obtained a Non-Self-Incrimination license.

"Is any of this starting to make sense?

john said...
Let's just look at the comments from wstpwstp, you will see that liberal logic is birdbath deep and twice as filthy :

"I don't believe that any yahoo with cash and a copy of the Constitution in his pocket has the right to buy a gun and shoot anyone he wants whenever he gets scared or angry.

Yes, I am a liberal and not a gun owner."

This is the kind of retarded thinking that falls forth from a liberals mouth as a brilliant idea. Let's just parse our comrades first dictum, yes you can own a gun with just cash and the constitution because........the constitution says so (you gibbering idiot). Once again we must parse the twisted verses and logic of the cloudy liberal brain to ordain the true depths of stupidity : This person did not shoot "just anyone he wanted", he shot an invader in his house and his intent was not known because he assumed room temperature before he could continue with his rudimentary business model. We don't know if he was a burglar, rapist, vandal or someone who simply steals the man's porridge and dashes the contents on the cobblestone roads of Britain....thus making him a cereal killer. Anger or fear can be interchangeable in such situations and are not the catalyst of the process but instead the byproduct of it.

Admitting you are a liberal negates the need for stating "not a gun owner", oxymoron. It's like stating that I am welfare recipient and own cold fusion technology or particle accelerators as a hobby.

Now to analysis a statement so profoundly stupid that simply by reading it should negate the need to critique the cavernous holes of logic.

Maybe he could have scared him off with a warning shot, maybe he could have been a better shot and only wounded the kid.

It's like trying to explain physics to a gerbil but the honor will be in the attempt :

So the mere presence of the handgun itself was not enough for this poor innocent child of nature to flee into the lush green landscape like Bambi, he needed to hear the thunderous roar of a hand cannon to perceive that mortal danger was present. Better yet, you are to shoot up your own house first or sling shell into the atmosphere and put some other shmuck in London in the path of an "incoming" rather than drilling the miscreant where he stands.

Now for my favorite, where should I have wounded him? In the fleshy part of his head since so little is being used for thought? How about in the liver, a lifetime of dialysis would provide invaluable lessons in life, no....messy and someone has to pay for the dialysis. How about a nice leg shot? Well unless it hits a major artery in the leg and he bleeds out like a deer, guess that plan has more holes in it than a liberals skull. By the time a liberal has even made a decision to defend his silly house the thief has pawned the goods, copped a bag, got a bottle of malt liquor, has a mind numbing good buzz going and is coming back around to get the big screen TV that is playing the coronation of the ObaMessiah.

No comments: