The second part of the issue I discussed this week in response to the new legislation is that of treachery. Tyranny will pretty much say anything you want to hear and then do something completely different. Usually, for the purpose of restricting rights of people or the powers that be need more money for whatever agenda they have at the moment.
I know of a state that enacted “seat belt” laws many years ago. At the time of the laws passing, all you heard was it was intended for the safety of people driving a vehicle. Makes perfect sense, I don’t want anyone dying that a seat belt could have saved. Seems like a pretty good idea. It was stated over and over by the legislature the state would not use the law to pull cars over and give them tickets. Well, fast forward a year or two and guess what, not only were they using the law to pull cars over for ticketing, they also started seat belt checkpoints to stop cars. Of course, once they had the ability to detain your vehicle, there are all sorts of other rights they could violate in the process.
It turns out, they never put into the law any of the other promises they made. They just sold it as, ‘don’t worry about this, it’s not a big deal’. If you are pulled over for another infraction then you could be ticketed. Interestingly, not violating people’s rights by using a shady law was never included in the final version. It didn’t take long before the real meaning behind that law showed its true colors.
Let’s look at the Affordable Care Act, where all sorts of promises were made vocally. Things like ‘if you like your doctor you won’t have to change,’ ‘your premiums won’t go up,’ and I’m sure there are a few others that I can’t think of at the moment. Interestingly, there was never anything added to the laws to safeguard the citizen in any of this. There was no provision in the law detailing that you wouldn’t have to change your doctor and insurance companies would have to respect your right to your current doctor. While most premiums didn’t rise much initially under the new regulation, things like co-pays and out of pocket expenses skyrocketed. Of course they didn’t include regulation of co-pays and out-of-pocket expenses. So the premium didn’t rise but you were now paying for something that unless you require extensive care, you get nothing for it.
Let’s look at the Civil Asset Forfeiture Laws, initially sold as a way to seize property from persons profiting from crimes. Certainly seems harmless but now we see they actually use that law to steal money and property from innocent people. They don’t even need a reason to do it, just take whatever they want for any reason they can concoct. Of course they didn’t include in the legislation protections for the citizens because there was never any intention of protecting the citizen’s rights. It was setup as a money grab, circumventing the legal process.
Let’s look at the new gun legislation. Background checks on persons buying firearms make sense on the surface. Sure, no one wants someone to purchase a firearm legally that can later be used to wreak havoc or commit more violent crimes. Fair Enough. I won’t even get into that criminals don’t buy guns legally or any other debate.
However, what is the real reason behind this law? I noticed no one is explaining what can be considered a reason to deny a firearm purchase and what safeguards are in place for law abiding citizens.
The Deviant View on Tyranny
Recent history has taught us that contemporary laws created to aid in public safety are a bait and switch, to not only stifle criminal behavior but also snare law abiding citizens in tyrannical behavior. If it was such a big deal to get this legislation done, why wasn’t it done through congress and the courts to make sure the appropriate safeguards are in place for law abiding citizens? This is how tyranny takes hold.
If this was needed and appropriate legislation it would not have any problems being debated publically and the rights of all people could have been protected. This is why we have the system and process we have so tyranny cannot seep into the system on unsuspecting citizens.
I do not have any issue with stopping criminals from obtaining firearms, my issue is solely who or what is deciding what the background check can deny. It may look like a good idea and all sorts of promises are made to protect rights, but we usually find out the hard way the promises for protection don’t make it into the law.
By King Deviant
If you dig it, share it