karen wrote:
Mr_Logic wrote:you are the same as those who said, "ban handguns! I don't shoot them so why do I care?"
No I'm not and I do find that VERY offensive - why on earth would it follow that by having nothing to hide I would want handguns banned?
Bit of a misquote there... whole sentence please. It is exactly the same. It's an apathetic view that lets the government embark on a slippery slope which removes freedom. This move (the NRA's emailed update to Guidance) tries to establish routine spot checks 'based on intelligence'. Of course, you never see the intelligence in question, and there is no oversight because they're trying to remove the warrant requirement. So must definitely follow they actually do HAVE intelligence. Funnily enough, I don't have anything to hide either, but that doesn't give el Plod the right to come into my home just because they want to. So unless they have a warrant, they can make an appointment.
It is rarely the 'quoted' use of power that is the problem, and usually the misuse. I have a supplier at work who happens to be black. Was telling me about how many times he got stopped and searched, to fill a quota. Is that good use of power?!
The handguns and CF semi auto ban was the same - start with X, then move on to Y, then who knows what?! Resist early, and then you still have a base of voters with which to threaten the establishment. When it comes to us now, we have no power at all because there are so few of us. Who cares about 100,000 votes in a general election? Judging by their policies, maybe UKIP, but nobody else. By sitting idly by, shooters allowed those measures to be passed without much of a grumble. plenty saw that it didn't affect them, so hey ho, no worries, carry on.
This is exactly the same - I've got nothing to hide, hey ho, carry on. Until something gets taken out of context. Then Bad Things will happen, probably unjustified, and then everybody will wish they'd opposed these measures.
karen wrote:
Mr_Logic wrote:
What if some Muppet decided you can't wear pink underwear, and we're doing spot checks to see. Still fine?
If you want to look at my underwear feel free - but you'll probably regret it tongueout Its black by the way!
Not what I meant and you know it! Perhaps I should have said black to include more people in that hypothetical scenario...
Karen wrote:
Mr_Logic wrote:It is the principle of the thing. How can you support measures which remove your freedom, don't give the public any security, and cost us ALL more money in tax?
What thing? What measures? We don't know what Blackstuff has alluded to and until tomorrow we won't know - lots of people have just assumed things so far. I just don't have anything to hide and don't have a problem with existing rules. I would certainly be happier if rules were relaxed in certain areas and I would certainly like to see handguns back but I don't feel my freedom has been removed.
What is trying to be established here is not the spot check of a shooter's cabinet. It's the principle of entering a shooter's home without a warrant from a judge, and without any current knowledge of a crime being committed. That's the issue here; what is in the Guidance is not supported in Law. Therefore, it should not be in the Guidance, yet it is. It's never been debated in Parliament, our views have not been heard, but it's there anyway.
That's what I'm objecting to - due process has not been given. I'd say 'what next? Secret courts, detention without trial'? But we're in 2014 and we lost those rights some time ago now. If you told someone in the 70s what it would look like now, I don't think they'd believe you. It's because it's gradual, and the populace stick to the opinion that they trust the Government, that tyranny could never happen here, that it won't affect me.
I don't trust the Government. Not one inch. They've banned most of our civil liberties:
* Freedom of speech
* Freedom of protest
* Right to a fair trial
* Right to not be detained without due process
They're trying to get rid of the Human Rights Act, despite the fact that they could deport people anyway if they just bothered to do it. They're trying very hard to ensure nobody is armed. All because of 'terrorists'.
Well here's a thing... That article linked earlier in the thread about outlawing conspiracy theorists - that is bloody dangerous. And they might be right. 9/11 gave the Western Governments the Thing they needed to be able to pass these draconian laws and be supported by the Public. So in terms of the entrenchment of power, pretty damn good as outcomes go. What did Al Qaeda have to gain from that level of atrocity? It brought down a whole world of s*** for them, didn't it? So it terms purely of motive, the conspiracy theorists may have a point.
On the bigger picture - how is it acceptable to ban them? They disagree with the government. News Mr Government - so do many people.
And yes, I am looking wider than this one piece of HO Guidance, but I believe that we, the people, must not give them an inch. They're out to take a mile - it's obvious with every piece of legislation that gets passed. More scary, is the fact that nobody in Opposition is fighting it, vocally and from the rooftops.
We used to stand for freedom, for rights, for openness. Our critique of the Arabian regimes was that they had closed courts, arbitrary justice based on opinion (i.e. you disagree, I cut off your head). So in our fight to preserve our way of life, we now have closed courts, and are about to outlaw disagreement with the regime (and of course if you outlaw something, there's a penalty. Maybe not the removal of a head, but a penalty nonetheless). Clearly, we are winning our 'War on Terror'!
