Saturday, June 29, 2013

"Hell to pay"

‘It’s just like Nazi Germany,’ says resident.

Update, June 30:  The government evacuates a town. And then agents of the government "force entry" into people's homes and seize their firearms.  Got that?

I was on the road yesterday, and spent some time thinking about this incident as I drove. 

Did a government arms registry list play any part in what houses were chosen? 

There are zero reports of looting mentioned in the news account I linked to. If the town is evacuated, and there's a police security presence, how real was any looting risk? 

Agents of the state, according to the article, had not re-secured these homes after the government break-ins. There's only a future promise that homes would be re-secured. If there was a looting risk, anything else of value left behind by residents was put at much higher risk. Jewelry, tools, coin collections, furnishings, appliances. 

Why would government intentionally create looting targets by breaking into homes and then leaving them open? Will government take responsibility for other missing items? Any chance agents of the state also pocketed a few goodies while protecting unknown entities from an undocumented threat by firearms that had been in otherwise secured dwellings? 

What kind of proof will be required to reclaim ownership? 

If a detailed inventory was kept, and the guns have been removed to safe location, why doesn't government return this collection of private property to its rightful owners? 

No, the gun grab by the RCMP smells to high heaven, and appears to be a knee jerk reaction by a government mindset that takes every opportunity to target gun ownership or to label guns as unsafe. 

From a purely public safety viewpoint, the police have done a grave disservice here. Will residents of towns facing a similar flood threat in the future be as willing to follow evacuation orders if they know the police may soon follow behind to kick in the doors and rummage through their stuff? 

No comments:

Post a Comment