search
top

What Happens When You Don’t Fight

The police end up coming to your house to make sure you’re a good little boy responsible gun owner.

VICTORIAN police are planning a crackdown on gun owners. They are set to check whether 18,000 of the state’s registered gun owners have stored their firearms properly.

This is in the face of dropping violent crime using guns along with a drop in gun theft cases as well.  I’d hate to see what they’d institute if gun violence and thefts were on the upswing.

Superintendent Ashley said police would move to stronger enforcement of gun laws. He said it was not a “Big Brother” approach but rather police working with the community to ensure community safety.

The innocent have nothing to fear.  You know, even if you could prove to me that these types of methods actually did lower the violent crime rate, I wouldn’t care.  A society where the police can check up on me at will to ensure my compliance with “community safety” isn’t a society that’s free, and isn’t one I want to live in.

7 Responses to “What Happens When You Don’t Fight”

  1. Yosemite Sam says:

    “A society where the police can check up on me at will to ensure my compliance with “community safety” isn’t a society that’s free, and isn’t one I want to live in.”

    Hear, hear. This needs to be said more and more often. We “gun nuts” often fall prey to the anti-self defense argument that if we can regulate or ban guns, then we can make people safer. We will counter argue that availability of guns to law abiding people make society safer.
    We should just shut down that whole line of argument and state that a society that restricts it citizens in this way and forces them to submit to police checks even when they have done no thing wrong is not in any way free.

    The problem is that many people in this country and other Western countries do not want to be free and actually yearn for a non-free society.

  2. Sebastian says:

    I think we need to argue both. Many people aren’t going to be persuaded by the freedom argument because they aren’t gun owners. Most people are remarkably unconcerned about anyone’s freedom other than their own. If we just use liberty based arguments, and don’t also attack the effectiveness of gun control, we will lose.

    We need to argue from the liberty point of view, because if we just argue on pragmatics, we’ll lose as well. The mistake Europeans made was fixating on the sport aspect, and giving in too many restrictions that ended up decimating the shooting sports there. Once their numbers were sufficiently reduced, it was easy to sell “These few people’s sport is not worth living in a more dangerous gun filled world.” to a public that had no familiarity or concern about shooting or gun rights.

  3. joe carpenter says:

    FIRE FOR EFFECT:

    “VICTORIAN police are planning a crackdown on parents. They are set to check whether 400,000 of the state’s parents are not abusing their children.
    Superintendent Ashley said police would move to stronger enforcement of child protection laws. He said it was not a “Big Brother” approach but rather police working with the community to ensure community safety.”

  4. Jim W says:

    I wonder if people would fight this in the US. We didn’t really acquit ourselves very well during Katrina, which is kind of disappointing.

    Then again I don’t imagine that anyone would come forward and tell the news media if they had shot police officers. And we have no idea how many LEOs went missing during Katrina because NOLA had hundreds of imaginary employees on the payroll and hundreds of the real employees abandoned their posts.

  5. Sebastian says:

    I don’t think most people are prepared to use deadly force under circumstances such as that, figuring when law and order were restored, there would be recourse through the political and legal system. For the most part, there was, but there are a lot of people who are never getting their guns back. If we really took this right seriously, Nagin, his police chief, and every person down the chain of command who followed those orders should have had charges brought against them. Nagin and his police chief should be in prison right now for issuing that order.

  6. joated says:

    “The majority of guns were stolen from homes, most of them “targeted thefts”, she said, but very few of the stolen firearms had been used in crimes.”

    Two things about this sentence bother me.
    1- Guns were stolen from homes in “targeted thefts” meaning people knew there were guns in the house. How? Were their names on file somewhere–oh, right. If I were to follow a police cruiser around as it drove about to check for proper strage of firearms, would I then be able to create a list of where the guns might be found?

    2- Given that even the stolen guns weren’t used in crimes, why are the police going to be checking to see if they are safely stored? Seems to be a waste of time. I’m sure there are many unsolved cases out there that need police attention. Cases like burglary of homes where guns were stored.

  7. Wai says:

    I say we should start lobbying to take away THEIR rights, if they keep lobbying take away our 2A right. Let’s start by taking away their right to free speech. Since insane people aren’t allowed to have guns, then I say insane people shouldn’t be able to speak freely. And we all know how insane those anti-gun moonbats are, don’t we? Yeah, let’s start with their right to free speech, then move on to their right to vote. We can’t have insane people voting now, can we? Lord knows what kind of moonbats they’ll vote into office. Let’s start doing to them what they’ve been doing to us. That ought to put a burr in their britches.

top