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