Valheru
08 Jul 2009, 11:50 AM
:bang:
It's lifted from a Warhammer forum I frequent. The thread was locked a couple of replies in.
Thread title: Civil Liberties
Ok first off this has absolutely nothing to do with 40K or WHF (unless you count the guns) but this is our/my little soap box and my own little pet project. If you are disinclined to listen to any of this don't say I didn't warn you ... simply skip to another topic.
This is posted in the wake of a notable judgment given by the high court (albeit interim relief) for the rights of firearm owners (and by extension owners of any property that may be confiscated by the state on a whim)
While you may not be a supporter of “gun rights” and may even be opposed to the use of firearms I urge you to consider the following not only as a problem for the owners and users of firearms. Instead consider this as a look at the consequences of the limitation of your civil liberties. Legislation is often used to regulate certain behavior, citizens would give up some liberties (i.e. the right to drink while driving) in order to secure some security (the safety of driving without some inebriated idiot killing you). These compromises should be carefully considered in terms of sacrifice vs gain. Sometimes these sacrifices give tremendous gains but we need to give careful thought whenever we sacrifice any rights. Quite often these days we find out our liberties limited for the cause of political expediency (see the discussion of the situation in Australia below) without gaining any tangible benefits and sometimes even being worse off. Some polititians love to add an emotional aspect to a "cause " and then launch their own little crusade. The net effect is often not to improve our lives (often the opposite since these causes are seldom rationally thought out and a course of action implemented) but it does get our politician in question a lot of media attention as well as support amongs certain groups.
Remember that while you may not really care about the rights being curtailed or even removed today this creates a precedent that tomorrow may enable the powers that be to summarily revoke your right to keep a dog on your property or to drive a car with a motor bigger than 1100cc without a special tax or to have more than one child etc. This is not alarmist and the examples may be rather drastic but not unrealistic if consideration is given to history (recent not ancient). In a democracy the people should determine the form of government and the way in which governmental powers are exercised, should we become complacent about defending these rights (by voting, speaking up, public protest etc.) we may find ourselves without these rights and without the avenues to protest such loss as it has all been legislated away. Goverment is not supposed to be a ruling class that is personified in a "Big Brother" attitude where your existance is regulated by endless legislation. Both goverment as well as legislation should exist to serve the good of the people as determined by the people. Be carefull to conserve your right to self determination as this is the difference between a state of law and a police state.
Some interesting (if lesser known) facts about firearms
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been more than 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
• Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
• Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
• Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 5 years, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note, my fellow countrymen, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favour of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.
With Guns............We Are "Citizens".
Without Them........We Are "Subjects".
During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Note: Admiral Yamamoto, who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbour had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of the US Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & their Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.
Will guns automatically make SA better? Maybe not but the right to own a firearm (and various other pieces of property that amy be potentially harmfull) in a reasonably regulated manner and be regarded as a responsible citizen until I give someone reason to alledge otherwise most certainly will.
No I don't have extremist tendencies, hoard canned food or have a survival shelter in my basement :wink: I'm simply concerned with the fact that many legislators seem to think it would be unsafe for the country to endow me with any responsibilaty in our society.
Your thoughts?
I believe I did a decent job of demolishing this post before the thread was locked, but I'd be interested in hearing your responses.
It's lifted from a Warhammer forum I frequent. The thread was locked a couple of replies in.
Thread title: Civil Liberties
Ok first off this has absolutely nothing to do with 40K or WHF (unless you count the guns) but this is our/my little soap box and my own little pet project. If you are disinclined to listen to any of this don't say I didn't warn you ... simply skip to another topic.
This is posted in the wake of a notable judgment given by the high court (albeit interim relief) for the rights of firearm owners (and by extension owners of any property that may be confiscated by the state on a whim)
While you may not be a supporter of “gun rights” and may even be opposed to the use of firearms I urge you to consider the following not only as a problem for the owners and users of firearms. Instead consider this as a look at the consequences of the limitation of your civil liberties. Legislation is often used to regulate certain behavior, citizens would give up some liberties (i.e. the right to drink while driving) in order to secure some security (the safety of driving without some inebriated idiot killing you). These compromises should be carefully considered in terms of sacrifice vs gain. Sometimes these sacrifices give tremendous gains but we need to give careful thought whenever we sacrifice any rights. Quite often these days we find out our liberties limited for the cause of political expediency (see the discussion of the situation in Australia below) without gaining any tangible benefits and sometimes even being worse off. Some polititians love to add an emotional aspect to a "cause " and then launch their own little crusade. The net effect is often not to improve our lives (often the opposite since these causes are seldom rationally thought out and a course of action implemented) but it does get our politician in question a lot of media attention as well as support amongs certain groups.
Remember that while you may not really care about the rights being curtailed or even removed today this creates a precedent that tomorrow may enable the powers that be to summarily revoke your right to keep a dog on your property or to drive a car with a motor bigger than 1100cc without a special tax or to have more than one child etc. This is not alarmist and the examples may be rather drastic but not unrealistic if consideration is given to history (recent not ancient). In a democracy the people should determine the form of government and the way in which governmental powers are exercised, should we become complacent about defending these rights (by voting, speaking up, public protest etc.) we may find ourselves without these rights and without the avenues to protest such loss as it has all been legislated away. Goverment is not supposed to be a ruling class that is personified in a "Big Brother" attitude where your existance is regulated by endless legislation. Both goverment as well as legislation should exist to serve the good of the people as determined by the people. Be carefull to conserve your right to self determination as this is the difference between a state of law and a police state.
Some interesting (if lesser known) facts about firearms
In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.
China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million 'educated' people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th Century because of gun control: 56 million.
It has now been more than 12 months since gun owners in Australia were forced by new law to surrender 640,381 personal firearms to be destroyed by their own government, a program costing Australia taxpayers more than $500 million dollars. The first year results are now in:
• Australia-wide, homicides are up 3.2 percent
• Australia-wide, assaults are up 8.6 percent
• Australia-wide, armed robberies are up 44 percent (yes, 44 percent)!
In the state of Victoria alone, homicides with firearms are now up 300 percent. Note that while the law-abiding citizens turned them in, the criminals did not, and criminals still possess their guns!
While figures over the previous 25 years showed a steady decrease in armed robbery with firearms, this has changed drastically upward in the past 5 years, since criminals now are guaranteed that their prey is unarmed. There has also been a dramatic increase in break-ins and assaults of the ELDERLY. Australian politicians are at a loss to explain how public safety has decreased, after such monumental effort and expense was expended in successfully ridding Australian society of guns. The Australian experience and the other historical facts above prove it.
You won't see this data on the evening news, or hear politicians disseminating this information. Guns in the hands of honest citizens save lives and property and, yes, gun-control laws adversely affect only the law-abiding citizens.
Take note, my fellow countrymen, before it's too late! The next time someone talks in favour of gun control, please remind him of this history lesson.
With Guns............We Are "Citizens".
Without Them........We Are "Subjects".
During W.W.II the Japanese decided not to invade America because they knew most Americans were ARMED!
Note: Admiral Yamamoto, who crafted the attack on Pearl Harbour had attended Harvard U 1919-1921 & was Naval Attaché to the U. S. 1925-28. Most of the US Navy was destroyed at Pearl Harbor & their Army had been deprived of funding & was ill prepared to defend the country. It was reported that when asked why Japan did not follow up the Pearl Harbor attack with an invasion of the U. S. Mainland, his reply was that he had lived in the U. S. & knew that almost all households had guns.
Will guns automatically make SA better? Maybe not but the right to own a firearm (and various other pieces of property that amy be potentially harmfull) in a reasonably regulated manner and be regarded as a responsible citizen until I give someone reason to alledge otherwise most certainly will.
No I don't have extremist tendencies, hoard canned food or have a survival shelter in my basement :wink: I'm simply concerned with the fact that many legislators seem to think it would be unsafe for the country to endow me with any responsibilaty in our society.
Your thoughts?
I believe I did a decent job of demolishing this post before the thread was locked, but I'd be interested in hearing your responses.