Two stories out of (formerly) Great Britain – the model for “gun control” for the hoplophobic.
One:
The most recent, a man travels to the U.S. and posts pictures on social media of him exercising a right which is denied to him at home: He’s photographed (awkwardly) holding firearms.
IT consultant arrested ‘for posing with a shotgun in Florida’
He returns to the UK. He is visited by the PoPo. He explains that he doesn’t own any firearms. He was in the Land of the Free, where it’s common to own and shoot guns. They go away.
They come back, seize all of his electronic devices (which he needs to do his job in IT) and arrest him “on suspicion of possessing a firearm with intent to cause fear of violence.” After thirteen weeks the charges are finally dropped, but his business is destroyed.
The punishment is the process.
Two:
The wife of a registered gun owner in the UK is diagnosed with terminal cancer. Her husband is an avid bird hunter, and legally owns several shotguns. While is is caring for his dying wife, he decides, for whatever reason, that he no longer wants a couple of the shotguns he owns. He contacts the police to inquire about “deactivating” these two guns. An officer whose job is specifically dealing with legally-owned firearms, comes and takes ALL OF THEM.
Why? Because his terminally ill wife “is a possible threat.”
His wife did pass, and then he tried to get his guns back. It took a while, but they did return them, but it is POLICE POLICY that if you or a loved one living in the home is seriously ill, they will take all the guns in the home.
This is “the slippery slope.” This is “common-sense gun control.” This is what gun control activists WANT.
And this is why U.S. gun owners have drawn a line and are pushing back hard.
UPDATE, 12/15:
On Sunday, 12/14 in Sydney, New South Wales Australia, two men armed with six shotguns attacked a gathering of Jews celebrating Hanukkah at a beach. The attackers, father and son, are, of course, Muslim. Fifteen victims have died as of the time of this update, and more than 40 were injured. One of the attackers has assumed room temperature, the other is wounded.
The motive for the attack remains unknown1, but the Prime Minister of Australia has announce that there will be further “gun control” legislation passed and additional attention will be paid to “right-wing extremists.”
The attack took place over an approximate 20 minute span. Four apparently armed police officers were on or near the scene, but also apparently took cover – and stayed there. Two officers attempted to intervene and were wounded.
The society that disarmed their citizens with the promise that the police would be there to protect them, failed to protect them. As one person has observed, it was Uvalde at the beach.
So what are they going to do now? Ban all shotguns? If past history tells us anything, there will be an exception made for members of the Religion of Peace. Anything else would be RACISSS!!!!
1 This is, of course, sarcasm.
What would Philip A. Luty do? “If you let them kill you, they will.” -Charles Bukowski. “There is no situation so bad that it cannot be made worse by the presence of police.” -William Norman Grigg.
Being a good little commie, I follow Mao and will never give up my political power. It’s
binary. Either you have it or you don’t.
“On Protracted War” (May 1938), Selected Works, Vol. II, p. 131.*
Every Communist must grasp the truth; “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.”
“And this is why U.S. gun owners have drawn a line and are pushing back hard.”
Not yet they aren’t. I read a suggestion this morning: “The next time some politician suggests gun confiscation, ask him if he has a plan for dealing with all the dead police that would result.” That’s when gun owners will be pushing back hard. Right now, they’re still being polite about it.
I was working in NJ when the 1990 NJ assault weapons ban was passed and went into effect. The head of the NJ state police publicly stated that as long as he was in charge, there would be no confiscation because he wasn’t willing to have his troopers killed while doing it. He only had 3,000 troopers (IIRC) and the estimated number of banned guns in NJ was 500,000.
Gunowners everywhere should understand, the gun takers will never stop, and neither will their children, next generation. This is a fight without end. You must always fight for your rights, and your children should, and teach their children, etc.
The actual question to ask that prospective politician is not whether they care about dead cops (they pretty much don’t and wouldn’t) but if they can stand Bill Clinton’s Rules of Engagement, as illuminated by the late Mike Vanderboegh:
When the Philanderer in Chief, frustrated with Serbian intransigence in 1999, changed the rules of engagement to include the political leadership, news media and the intellectual underpinning of his enemy’s war effort, he accidentally filed suit under the Law of Unintended Consequences. The Serbians knuckled under, yes. But the rest of the world took note…
I have asked this question before. They will fight to the last ATF agent or to the last oath-breaking soldier. Will they fight to the first senior bureaucrat, the second Congressman, the third newspaper editor, the fourth Senator, the fifth White House aide? Can they stand Bill Clinton’s rules of engagement?
Happy New Year! May your health and finances improve.