View Full Version : Uk - Farmer Threatened - Police take her guns
Mobat555
04-28-2011, 14:58
Farmer menaced with death threats by gang of travellers dials 999... and police turn up to confiscate her shotguns (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380753/Farmers-fury-gipsy-death-threats-999-results-legally-held-guns-confiscated-case-retaliates.html)
Glad I am American.
If I'm not mistaken, "Travellers" is the British PC way of saying Roma aka Gypsies.
H.
Farmer menaced with death threats by gang of travellers dials 999... and police turn up to confiscate her shotguns (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1380753/Farmers-fury-gipsy-death-threats-999-results-legally-held-guns-confiscated-case-retaliates.html)
Glad I am American.
Too bad I got a feeling we'll wind up like the Brits eventually. While I hope for the best I have the feeling I'll be last of my family who can purchase firearms without major govt interference. I'm pretty sure my grandchildren, if not my sons, will grow up in a society were gun ownership is highly regulated if not totally banned.
We're basically the last major nation to allow private gun ownership. And a good chunk of our society doesn't value, or is even hostile to, that right.
whats probably most frsutrating is that violent crimes have never gone down long term due to gun regulations.
TrapperJohn
04-28-2011, 16:18
Too bad I got a feeling we'll wind up like the Brits eventually. While I hope for the best I have the feeling I'll be last of my family who can purchase firearms without major govt interference. I'm pretty sure my grandchildren, if not my sons, will grow up in a society were gun ownership is highly regulated if not totally banned.
We're basically the last major nation to allow private gun ownership. And a good chunk of our society doesn't value, or is even hostile to, that right.
The next generation might have to REALLY fight for freedom. It's not a bad thing, most libs are not armed.
Here in CO if every armed person shot 1 lib we would be problem free in a day.
I am not promoting violence but if a group of people takes away your rights then you are within you rights to remove their life. Freedom is something to fight for and it is something to be cherished. We should never give this up.
It says she's terminally ill.
Not gonna lie, if some punk ass pikey came around my farm and started screwing with me the way they did and I was terminally ill, I would not have been so stingy with my lead.
The next generation might have to REALLY fight for freedom. It's not a bad thing, most libs are not armed.
Here in CO if every armed person shot 1 lib we would be problem free in a day.
I am not promoting violence but if a group of people takes away your rights then you are within you rights to remove their life. Freedom is something to fight for and it is something to be cherished. We should never give this up.
Honestly, I don't see the next generation really caring till it's far too late. Most don't even view gun ownership as a basic right. I'm sure the gun owners in Britain and Australia were just as opposed to their nation's outright bans as we are, yet it still happened without any armed resistance.
I totally agree with you that our freedom and our rights are something worth fighting for. But human nature is what it is. Each passing generation in this country seems to value its freedom less and less and they are unwilling to sacrifice for anything, even themselves. I hope I'm wrong but if history is a guide it will get far worse before it gets better.
Tweety Bird
04-28-2011, 19:00
Honestly, I don't see the next generation really caring till it's far too late. Most don't even view gun ownership as a basic right. I'm sure the gun owners in Britain and Australia were just as opposed to their nation's outright bans as we are, yet it still happened without any armed resistance.
I totally agree with you that our freedom and our rights are something worth fighting for. But human nature is what it is. Each passing generation in this country seems to value its freedom less and less and they are unwilling to sacrifice for anything, even themselves. I hope I'm wrong but if history is a guide it will get far worse.
You had 4 too many words at the end. So I fixed it.
These people were the same ones that initiated the issue with that farmer Tony Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29) back about 12 years ago. In that case, the farmer got some.
They are comparable to the illegal mexicans and central americans here, although IMO worse as they are all squatters and many are thieves.
My God, what a fucked up place, we can't let that happen here......
If I'm not mistaken, "Travellers" is the British PC way of saying Roma aka Gypsies.
H.
We prefer the term 'Gypos' aka thieving bastards. Typically when they move into an area things start to go missing and they turn the area into a shithole.
Pikies is also acceptable since the movie Snatch.
Seamonkey
04-29-2011, 07:53
These people were the same ones that initiated the issue with that farmer Tony Martin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Martin_%28farmer%29) back about 12 years ago. In that case, the farmer got some.
I remember the story about Tony Martin. Reading the link again this morning ... just pisses me off again
I will never ever understand how a criminal breaking into a house has more rights than the homeowner who is defending themselves. I just don't get it.
16 years old, 29 convictions, released that day on bail yet it's the farmer's fault. I don't get it.
I remember the story about Tony Martin. Reading the link again this morning ... just pisses me off again
I will never ever understand how a criminal breaking into a house has more rights than the homeowner who is defending themselves. I just don't get it.
16 years old, 29 convictions, released that day on bail yet it's the farmer's fault. I don't get it.
Because the farmer was a greater threat to The State than the felon. Repeat this mantra - 'Guns are Bad. Government is Good.' Armed citizens, especially ones willing to resist and use their arms, are dangerous to the Tyrants that would seek to rule over them. Those with the willingness to act must be broken and made an example to all the other sheep. The desired goal was to make other people second guess defending themselves and to instead rely on The State. Goal achieved.
Armed citizens, especially ones willing to resist and use their arms, are dangerous to the Tyrants that would seek to rule over them.
Yep, look what happened to the Crown's troops in The Colonies back in the 1700's.
I remember the story about Tony Martin. Reading the link again this morning ... just pisses me off again
I will never ever understand how a criminal breaking into a house has more rights than the homeowner who is defending themselves. I just don't get it.
16 years old, 29 convictions, released that day on bail yet it's the farmer's fault. I don't get it.
I have no great love for burglars (I've been burgled myself) but the Tony Martin case isn't a good example to cite. First of all, he didn't shoot in self defence - he shot them in the back while they were running away. I'm pretty sure that would get most of us into trouble too.
Secondly, he used an illegally held shotgun. Note that it wasn't illegal because "guns are illegal in the UK" or anything like that - he had his firearms certificate revoked several years earlier (before the 1997 Firearms Act) for shooting at cars driving on public roads that bordered his farm.
Thirdly, part of the basis of his own appeal against his murder conviction was that he was mentally ill with the mind of a ten-year-old so whether he was even fit to own a shotgun is a moot point.
I know nothing about this case but I do have some observations just from the very high level:
I have no great love for burglars (I've been burgled myself) but the Tony Martin case isn't a good example to cite. First of all, he didn't shoot in self defence - he shot them in the back while they were running away. I'm pretty sure that would get most of us into trouble too.
The concept that you must prove you were under imminent life or death threat when someone has invaded your home is nonsense. There used to be a time that one had the right to defend their home and property without having to fear automatic persecution by their own government. I'm not advocating people just start shooting anyone who steps on their lawn, but if someone breaks into your home, they intend you some sort of harm. You should have the right to defend your person and property without fear of your government. As it is now, your home isn't your castle. People can break in without fear of reprisal from you. It's the victim who has to fear the consequences of any actions they may take, short of just choosing to cower in the corner as a victim. How is that even sane?
Secondly, he used an illegally held shotgun. Note that it wasn't illegal because "guns are illegal in the UK" or anything like that - he had his firearms certificate revoked several years earlier (before the 1997 Firearms Act) for shooting at cars driving on public roads that bordered his farm.
Not arguing he may have had some mental issues. Shooting at cars is never good. The fact UK citizens, at that time, required a Govt sanctioned firearms certificate that could be revoked whenever the Govt so chose, I take issue with. Govt permission eventually leads to Govt prohibition. It happened in England. It will probably happen here eventually. We're already well down the slippery path of 'Govt Permission'
Thirdly, part of the basis of his own appeal against his murder conviction was that he was mentally ill with the mind of a ten-year-old so whether he was even fit to own a shotgun is a moot point.
He may very well have been that mentally ill. However, I got a feeling that appeal/defense was used to simply get the poor bastard out of jail. I doubt he was that nuts. But since I don't know the facts, I won't go any further with my conjecture.
In the end, IMHO, he had the right to defend his property, especially after being robbed multiple times (probably by these same punks). Criminals, not law abiding citizens, should be the ones who are afraid. If you invade someone's house, you should run the real risk of getting shot. I don't care if you chose to turn tail and run when it's clear you chose the wrong house to invade. Your original intent was clear.
Not cool. Police are idiots. Enforcing unjust laws are just as bad as those that made it law.
This is why most people are opposed to mandatory gun registration. No gun was involved in that incident. She had a couple of break action shotguns in her home in a locked cabinet with the key hidden -- even other family members didn't know where the key was kept. Police computer said she had shotguns, so they confiscated them and revoked her permit.
That is the same reason why many folks I know refuse to apply for a CCW permit. It is legal for them to have a handgun in their home, place of business, or vehicle and they rarely feel the need to carry so they forgo paying fees to be entered into a database so every time they get pulled over for a minor traffic offense there is a chance the cop might consider him "armed and dangerous" as has happened on occasion with others who've posted in this forum.
KevDen2005
04-29-2011, 13:46
I have English friends who constantly criticize the US for their written Constitution. They claim they are just as free as we are without anything written...I beg to differ
BushMasterBoy
04-29-2011, 14:24
Most politicians are corrupt. Police work for the politicians, thus police are corrupt too. I feel sorry for the lady. Britain has turned to crap.
Churchill was right, it was their finest hour, and it grows all the more fine the more time passes and the further into failure england falls.
Byte Stryke
04-29-2011, 19:19
Not cool. Police are idiots. Enforcing unjust laws are just as bad as those that made it law.
Most politicians are corrupt. Police work for the politicians, thus police are corrupt too. I feel sorry for the lady. Britain has turned to crap.
Am I Late for the Cop-Bashing Thread?
[ROFL1]
I will beat this horse until it resurrects itself.
Am I Late for the Cop-Bashing Thread?
[ROFL1]
I will beat this horse until it resurrects itself.
I'm not bashing the cops here but its still pretty shitty disarming her when there was a threat against her. They never disarmed Sherlock Holmes you know.
Here is a interesting article written by a great writer Howard Nemerov
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/04/29/british-gun-control-is-sexist/
I guess it's really not surprising now that I think about it, given Britain's history of oppression through the ages of all the peoples of all the lands they've taken over. That whole "British Empire" thing was pretty rough on a lot of people in a lot of places where Britain really had no damn business being.
BREATHER
04-30-2011, 07:49
Doesn't Britain have the Magna Carta, written "rules" supposed to be how the "royals" treat the "commoners".
First off, most royals are more inbred than hilljacks. Britain has been ruled by foreigners in the past.
So if I say that Brits disgust me is that being racist ????[ROFL2]
BushMasterBoy
04-30-2011, 15:53
This guy didn't even commit a crime...
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Home/Activist-arrested-ahead-of-Royal-Wedding-protest-29042011.htm
Doesn't Britain have the Magna Carta, written "rules" supposed to be how the "royals" treat the "commoners".
First off, most royals are more inbred than hilljacks. Britain has been ruled by foreigners in the past.
So if I say that Brits disgust me is that being racist ????[ROFL2]
Magna Cara isn't that simple but it mostly limited the power of the King over the other nobility and their property rights.
The fact that the King agreed to it, under threat of death of course, was "revolutionary" and began the "negotiated" structure of the Constitutional/Palimentary form of Government in England as well as our own.
The Brits do not have a Bill of Rights that specifically limits the power of Government over the people ... hence the continued erosion of what few "rights" under common law the English had.
We're just giving them away willy nilly.
The Brits have decided that as a matter of "public safety" defending yourself or even having the tools to defend yourself is essentially against the law. They've accomplished this by imprisoning anyone that attempts or succeeds in an act of self defense.
We're one election away.
The Brits have decided that as a matter of "public safety" defending yourself or even having the tools to defend yourself is essentially against the law. They've accomplished this by imprisoning anyone that attempts or succeeds in an act of self defense.
We're one election away.
No, they haven't. It's not against the law to act in self defence in the UK at all.
ChunkyMonkey
04-30-2011, 22:36
No, they haven't. It's not against the law to act in self defence in the UK at all.
As long as you do it with barehands and without touching the bad guys.[Tooth]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.