In a message dated 00-08-07 14:11:44 EDT, you write: << WHEN YOU TURN ON THE LIGHT, YOU SEE IT WAS YOUR HUSBAND AND 16 YEAR OLD SON. WEAPON WAS A SINGLE ROSE, THEY HAD GOTTEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT TO GET, TO SHOW YOU HOW MUCH THEY LOVE YOU. >> Anyone wonder what the husband and 16 year old were doing out in the middle of the night? With some of the men I have known--bring me a rose in the middle of the night--and I would wonder where he had been with my sixteen year old in the middle of the night. LOL Just joking--it was just the 1st thought that came to my mind. And I don't believe in total gun control.

Cher, As hard as it is to find volunteers, I'm afraid it may be more difficult if this isn't an annual event. We all tend to put things off until the last minute! Maybe there should be an annual homecoming picnic---just a simple get-together for any of the folks that want to continue to make plans to come to the area that particular week-end. (A "bring-a-dish" type affair, maybe a "home-made ice cream social") If it's informal enough and everyone knows to meet at an area campground, park, or community center on that day, there won't have to be a lot of plans and preparations made in advance. This was only the 2nd annual Homecoming event. There is already talk of making it a biennial event. Before we know it, it will be every 5th year---then, not at all! Sandy Ellis

If we did not have the right to bear arms there might not be any genealogy to provide a forum. Gene Wallace Antioch TN ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:48 PM Subject: [DC] Re: The gun issue...... > I thought this was a genealogy forum. > > > ==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== > My family tree must have been used for Firewood !!! > >

Roger you are correct and I apoligize for what little I had to say,END OF SUBJECT LETS MOVE ON.Thanks ----- Original Message ----- From: "Roger Cooper" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 3:54 PM Subject: Re: [DC] Re: The gun issue...... > For me, this site is only genealogy. Many other sites exist for the purpose > of airing views that are political or social. If this site becomes a > staging arena for views not related to genealogy, I know how to delete it. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:48 PM > Subject: [DC] Re: The gun issue...... > > > > I thought this was a genealogy forum. > > > > > > ==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== > > My family tree must have been used for Firewood !!! > > > > > ==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== > My Family Tree has Root Rot !! >

For me, this site is only genealogy. Many other sites exist for the purpose of airing views that are political or social. If this site becomes a staging arena for views not related to genealogy, I know how to delete it. ----- Original Message ----- From: <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:48 PM Subject: [DC] Re: The gun issue...... > I thought this was a genealogy forum. > > > ==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== > My family tree must have been used for Firewood !!! >

At 04:58 PM 08/07/2000 -0500, you wrote: >Cher, > >As hard as it is to find volunteers, I'm afraid it may be more difficult if >this isn't an annual event. We all tend to put things off until the last >minute! > >Maybe there should be an annual homecoming picnic---just a simple >get-together for any of the folks that want to continue to make plans to >come to the area that particular week-end. (A "bring-a-dish" type affair, >maybe a "home-made ice cream social") If it's informal enough and everyone >knows to meet at an area campground, park, or community center on that day, >there won't have to be a lot of plans and preparations made in advance. > >This was only the 2nd annual Homecoming event. There is already talk of >making it a biennial event. Before we know it, it will be every 5th >year---then, not at all! > >Sandy Ellis > > >==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== >Hi Ho! Hi Ho! Now where did my ancestors go ?? > >Cher, Some kind of annual event would certainly keep the continuity, with a full-blown reunion every other year. Incidentally, I mentioned our problems with Paris Landing to Brenda Griffith at the Benton County Gen. Society. She said that the Bank in Camden has just built a community building in Camden that they let organizations use. It apparently is large and well equipped. That might be a good place to have as a headquarters for our functions. I plan to be in Branson , Missouri next July for a Gleaves Family Reunion so I will be in the "area" no matter what we decide. Bill Gleaves Philomath, Oregon

In a message dated 08/07/2000 1:15:36 PM US Eastern Standard Time, [email protected] writes: << Personally, I think we need to wait until 2002 >> I agree! Karen Alexander

I thought this was a genealogy forum.

Before Dave jumps on me for poor judgement.... I plead guilty..... and fall on the mercy of the court... lets let this dozing dog lie...and move on... I sent that email because it struck a nerve with me... I pulled a faux pas...so ...help me save my bacon...and lets get off this subject... I wont bring it up again.... QUESTION? Do you want to have a DCHomecoming in 2001? or wait till 2002... I am taking a vote ... Personally, I think we need to wait until 2002. We need to discuss where.... and what folks are wanting... a committee is hard to get together... and we dont want to abuse the volunteers we have... Let me know...we can start a thread on this on DC if you like so we can all get a feel what we want to do... I am posting this to the other email lists involved too as their opinions will matter as well.. Let me know your thoughts.. Cher ----- Original Message ----- From: Joe Hardin <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 1:44 PM Subject: Re: [DC] 2nd Amendment > tharper, THANK YOU for the 2nd amendment message and I agree 100% > on what the message says. I thank our ancestors for mking the @nd into law > as well as the freedom of speech which I am also thankful for,and grant each > side the right to express their views on the right to have a firearm in your > home. I for one am a LIFE Memeber of the NRA and proud of it.That don't mean > I agree with everything they do,but we don't agree with all of anything. > Thats human nature to dis agree with our Gov. and other peoples views. That > is our GOD given rights and was puchased with the blood of many of our > ancestors,and close kin. I am sorry for writing this on the ancestor page > but others have started it. I guess the person who shoot their husband and > 16 yr Old son blames the gun . I'm sorry but they are wrong,it was the > person who used it. I know that does not bring back the son or husband,but > that is where a person should be responsible enough to THINK about how to > handle a event before it happens. I DO NOT WANT MY GUNS TAKEN BY ANYONE,not > by Clinton or GORE > Sorry again but this should have not gone this far. Forgive me > JOE L HARDIN > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "tharper" <[email protected]> > To: <[email protected]> > Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 5:06 AM > Subject: Re: [DC] 2nd Amendment > > > > WELL PUT CHER!! > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Cher <[email protected]> > > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > > Date: Sunday, August 06, 2000 8:18 PM > > Subject: [DC] 2nd Amendment > > > > > > >Share this with your friends who still cherish their freedoms! Notice > > >who's trying to take your guns! > > > > > > > > > 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 a weapon--it > 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 are represented as choir boys. 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 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 > > >sidearms still owned by private itizens. > > > > > > 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. Kinda like cars. > > > > > > Sound familiar? > > > > > > WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS > > > PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT > > > IN OUR CONSTITUTION. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== > > >GENEALOGY is like Hide & Seek: > > >They Hide & I Seek !! > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== > > GENEALOGY goes on... and on... and on... > > > > > > > > > > > > > ==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== > My Family Tree has Root Rot !! >

tharper, THANK YOU for the 2nd amendment message and I agree 100% on what the message says. I thank our ancestors for mking the @nd into law as well as the freedom of speech which I am also thankful for,and grant each side the right to express their views on the right to have a firearm in your home. I for one am a LIFE Memeber of the NRA and proud of it.That don't mean I agree with everything they do,but we don't agree with all of anything. Thats human nature to dis agree with our Gov. and other peoples views. That is our GOD given rights and was puchased with the blood of many of our ancestors,and close kin. I am sorry for writing this on the ancestor page but others have started it. I guess the person who shoot their husband and 16 yr Old son blames the gun . I'm sorry but they are wrong,it was the person who used it. I know that does not bring back the son or husband,but that is where a person should be responsible enough to THINK about how to handle a event before it happens. I DO NOT WANT MY GUNS TAKEN BY ANYONE,not by Clinton or GORE Sorry again but this should have not gone this far. Forgive me JOE L HARDIN ----- Original Message ----- From: "tharper" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Monday, August 07, 2000 5:06 AM Subject: Re: [DC] 2nd Amendment > WELL PUT CHER!! > -----Original Message----- > From: Cher <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Date: Sunday, August 06, 2000 8:18 PM > Subject: [DC] 2nd Amendment > > > >Share this with your friends who still cherish their freedoms! Notice > >who's trying to take your guns! > > > > > > 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 a weapon--it 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 are represented as choir boys. 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 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 > >sidearms still owned by private itizens. > > > > 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. Kinda like cars. > > > > Sound familiar? > > > > WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS > > PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT > > IN OUR CONSTITUTION. > > > > > > > > > >==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== > >GENEALOGY is like Hide & Seek: > >They Hide & I Seek !! > > > > > > > > > > > ==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== > GENEALOGY goes on... and on... and on... > > > > >

" In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a weapon--it 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 WHEN YOU TURN ON THE LIGHT, YOU SEE IT WAS YOUR HUSBAND AND 16 YEAR OLD SON. WEAPON WAS A SINGLE ROSE, THEY HAD GOTTEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT TO GET, TO SHOW YOU HOW MUCH THEY LOVE YOU. Once the horror of seeing your husband and child laying on the floor starts to wane and you pull yourself together enough to make the needed phone call to the police, you notice that there is really three bodies on the floor your husband, your son and one of the two intruders who were standing in the hallway when you took aim. The rose is still in your sons hand as if he still intended to give it to you. That was before the surprise on you turned into a surprise for them as they were brained with a crowbar as they walked down the hallway toward your room and were clubbed from behind by the would be burglars turned murderers. You have never felt so confused over the range of emotions you are now feeling. You are grieved over your loss. You feel a strange feeling of relief knowing you did not shoot your loved ones and you feel anger toward the intruder laying in your floor and an overwhelming sense of revenge you feel towards the one that got away. Then.... ==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== My genealogy software won't accept "spaceship" as a "Place of Birth"..... Now What ????

" In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds a weapon--it 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 WHEN YOU TURN ON THE LIGHT, YOU SEE IT WAS YOUR HUSBAND AND 16 YEAR OLD SON. WEAPON WAS A SINGLE ROSE, THEY HAD GOTTEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE NIGHT TO GET, TO SHOW YOU HOW MUCH THEY LOVE YOU.

Hello, Can anyone out there do a marriage look-up for a Eudora Stolz and a W, D. Cotter. Date Dec. 6, 1882. in Robertson Co. TN. I would like to confirm if this is William Cotter. On an obituary it just list his initials. Pat

WELL PUT CHER!! -----Original Message----- From: Cher <[email protected]> To: [email protected] <[email protected]> Date: Sunday, August 06, 2000 8:18 PM Subject: [DC] 2nd Amendment >Share this with your friends who still cherish their freedoms! Notice >who's trying to take your guns! > > > 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 a weapon--it 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 are represented as choir boys. 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 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 >sidearms still owned by private itizens. > > 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. Kinda like cars. > > Sound familiar? > > WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS > PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT > IN OUR CONSTITUTION. > > > > >==== DanvilleCrossing Mailing List ==== >GENEALOGY is like Hide & Seek: >They Hide & I Seek !! > > > >

Cher, I think you hit the nail right on the head. This is exactly why we don't need gun control. For one thing, this country is far too large to get the guns away from the criminals themselves so they would have a field day on innocent people. I myself own guns but they are alway locked in the trunk of a car without ammunition in the garage when children come to visit. And just in case I forget to put them back inside I always have a very strong stun gun with me even at my bedside, at least I might have a chance. This is my right to have a protection. If parents are leaving their child home alone with guns in the house then I do see a problem with that; they should have gun locks and especially all the naive parents who think "my child would never get into my things". That was a part of childhood, snooping through parents rooms, especially with latch key kids. No gun is unreachable to a child home alone. Suzanne

Pat, I am so glad to hear that everything went well!! Praise the Lord. Ronda

Cheers!!!!!!! ~Betsy~in~TN~

All you really need to know about government and bureaucracy: Pythagorean theorem: 24 words. Lord's prayer: 66 words. Archimedes' Principle: 67 words. 10 Commandments: 179 words. Gettysburg address: 286 words. Declaration of Independence: 1,300 words. US Government regulations on the sale of cabbage: 26,911 words.

Share this with your friends who still cherish their freedoms! Notice who's trying to take your guns! 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 a weapon--it 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 are represented as choir boys. 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 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 sidearms still owned by private itizens. 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. Kinda like cars. Sound familiar? WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION.

Jan, I whole-heartedly agree with you on the subject of those skeletons in the closets. And on the subject, I recommend to everyone the book by Wally Lamb, This Much I Know is True . (but not to anyone that shocks easily) All of humanity struggles with the same struggles. Some of us were unwittingly born into the middle of a family that has so much swept under the rug that the darned rug trips everyone that tries to walk by. God bless the survivors of screwed up families. I'm not embarassed of any of my kin, even the one that lies buried in a field on the farm where he was killed by vigilantes. Not embarassed of any of them, and proud of myself. Gee, I've come a long way. Genealogy encompasses so many different subjects.............Don't you just LOVE it?