40 thoughts on ““It’s Just Like Nazi Germany””

  1. I love how some of the commenters on that article say basically “…but the police are here to keep you safe. Show some respect. You’ll get your guns back.”

    How about that’s not the point? How about I have a right to have my private property not broken into by the government?

    How about I don’t want to be kept “safe”, where “safe” is what some leftist in a position of government power determines safe is. I more importantly want to be kept free. If you locked everybody in individual jail cells, you would be “safe”. No one would be murdered. But you wouldn’t be free.

          1. How is it slander? Seriously: Did I misunderstand your position on the Oklahoma City bombing?

          2. What position? As everyone in that thread tried to explain to you, what I wrote and what you seemed to be so offended by was two completely different things.

            Since then, all you’ve done is quip lies about me. I assumed you were doing it deliberately.

          3. Rand, would you mind if Trent and I had it out? If Trent is willing, I’ll talk about once with him here, and drop it forever after that. Thanks (or apologies) in advance.

            The comments I’m talking about are here:

            Trent, first, I’d like you to know that I want to be wrong. I thought rather highly of you until you said what you said about the OK City bombing.

            Trent, I acknowledge that you didn’t want kids, non-government workers, and perhaps many others to be harmed. But I can’t see how to read your comments (plural) as anything other than an endorsement of killing people like the secretary named Linda who worked for the U.S department of Housing and Urban Development. I asked you about Linda specifically, and you didn’t say “no, it was wrong to murder Linda”, and instead, incredibly, you cited the housing collapse and subsequent financial crisis. I take offense at the idea that it was acceptable to murder Linda and the other victims who worked for the federal government. I think you are endorsing their killing. What have I misunderstood?

            And for others, I don’t think this is entirely off-topic or a “hijack of the thread”. When Rand (above) and RickL (below) talk about the 2nd Amendment, presumably they are talking about threatening police officers with deadly force. They are just being a bit more elliptical about it than Trent was. Or have I misunderstood yet again?

          4. You claim about Linda was that she had done nothing wrong. I corrected you.

            At no point did I advocate killing anyone.

            I still don’t understand how a misunderstanding justifies your bullying behavior over the last month.

          5. “At no point did I advocate killing anyone.”

            That arguable, as I acknowledged in the thread. I said: “I’d say that yes, he is advocating murdering people like Linda, but technically, if you want hide behind rhetorical devices, what he actually did was question whether Linda’s murder was wrong. ”

            So, what I find offensive, is the idea that you can seriously question whether Linda’s murder is wrong. The way you asked the question matters: your question wasn’t idle – it took the form of advocacy.

            On questioning: It is fine to be philosophical and question all sorts of things, even, and perhaps particularly, taboos. I’m not saying that there are topics which must never be explored. But I don’t think you were engaging in some sort of Socratic exploration of the world of ideas. Linda isn’t just an imaginary philosophical construct — she was a real person who was murdered. You think she did something wrong (she worked for HUD) and you’re questioning whether she should be murdered. That’s not philosophical. When you ask ” what exactly are individuals supposed to do when talking just isn’t working?” That’s not an idle question – that’s equivalent to advocacy, and it is advocating murder.

          6. I suppose I could ask about values rather than focusing on advocacy. Let me ask you: If the Oklahoma City bombing could have been accomplished such that it absolutely and assuredly would only murder Linda, do you think it would have been wrong to carry out the bombing? If so, why?

          7. I have a suggestion, Bob-1. Why don’t you get your own blog and complain about your issues, real and imagined there? I guess I’m getting unusually tired of your little games.

            Sure, it’s an internet thing to speak coyly here and elsewhere of destructive fantasies or What’s “Special” About Detroit. You confronted Trent on that thread and I think made some decent points. But we aren’t perfect and merely being an ass isn’t going to persuade anyone of the correctness of your views and arguments. After all, that hasn’t worked on you last I checked – so why should you expect it to work on anyone else?

            When Rand (above) and RickL (below) talk about the 2nd Amendment, presumably they are talking about threatening police officers with deadly force.

            No, they’re talking about a counterweight to tyranny which is what they actually said. While presumably, any tyrant would have some sort of police force at their disposal and firearms owned by a resistance would be used against such trappings of power, conversely police aren’t tyrants and I haven’t seen anyone here imply such (though such accusations are made often on the internet).

            Elsewhere, Rand has advocated use of firearms for personal protection. I think your so-called “misunderstandings” and “presumptions” are deliberate slander, but in the same coy way that you accuse others of doing. Maybe you should leave for a bit and cool down so that you don’t do anything illegal enough that someone will bother to pull you (or perhaps your employer should you be doing this posting for another) into court for it?

          8. As an aside, I find it interesting how you were complaining in the Timothy McVeigh thread about M Puckett changing the topic. It’s bad when M Puckett does it, but not bad when you do it. One should be wary of such instinctive hypocrisy.

          9. Bob-1, the McVeigh thread was about McVeigh’s views. I’ve never made any secret of my opinions towards government, or the means by which social change should happen. How could you possibly not notice how different the two were?

            It really does seem clear now that you’re a desperately confused individual who has a reading comprehension problem.. but it still doesn’t explain why you’ve been a snippy little bully the last month.

            Karl, while I appreciate the desire to see Bob-1 take his slanderous little quips about me to his own blog, I’d prefer he just didn’t make them. There’s no need to act like he has.

          10. Karl, overall, you’re probably right. I might like to talk to Trent and Rand a bit more if they are willing, but then I’ll leave. A quibble: Regarding Rand and RickL, I meant to add the phrase “in the context of the article on the flooding in Canada”, but managed to hit the “Post Comment” button too early. I understand the outrage over the police entering homes and securing firearms (regardless of their promise to give them back) but talking about tyrants, Nazis, and the 2nd Amendment in that context suggests to me an elliptical reference to threatening the police. I’m not being coy. I don’t see how else to interpret it, if they are talking about a direct response to a situation like the one in Canada. But again, I think your overall point is probably right, and yes, I’ll stop. I just wish someone else, preferably a libertarian, had presented Trent with a pro-American anti-terrorism argument.

          11. Trent, in my opinion, you said the most shocking thing I’ve ever read on this blog. Others have said worse, but they were obviously loons, so it wasn’t so shocking. I’ve been “a bully” lately because I’m genuinely surprised no one here wanted to criticize what you said, and I wanted to wake them up.

            For years, I posted comments here that were an example of what a moderate Democrat would say. Sometimes even what a moderate Republican would say. For years, I received acknowledgements from people that at least I was polite, even if I was, in their view, completely wrong. And for years I received some pretty obnoxious abuse. Bullying, if you want to call it that – is pretty common around here, although maybe you haven’t noticed if you haven’t been on the receiving end. I received truly horrible criticism for saying things as moderate as, I don’t know, maybe “the majority of Muslims are peaceful” or some horrible thought like that. But then you come along and say something that (I believe) was actually pro-terrorism. And no one wanted to criticize you at all. Unbelievable.

            I snapped. Sure, I could have been more polite, but I was furious, and I can’t believe no one wants to call you on what you said. It changes my view of the people who comment here. So, yes, it is best that I leave. I hope the rest of you figure out how to answer Trent’s questions about violence, because I don’t see a coherent and consistent answer from any of you.

          12. I missed that whole dust up, but did see it brought up repeatedly lately. If Bob is right about it then he’s only backing down due to uniform social pressure, much the way men back down when a table full of girls insist that the word “lady” is a derisive term and he was wrong for railing against the “lady” for advocating child murder as a way to bring a family closer together, and he’s wrong to keep bringing it up.

            If Trent is right it just shows that the Australian government is abusive and dysfunctional enough to be included in Rumsfeld’s map of regions where failed socialist or theocratic states breed tacit support for terrorists or terrorist actions. Plus, all Australians would like to kill us and take our land so they can live in a place where toilets flush the right way. But with the success of Rudd’s coup against Gillard, maybe they’ll calm down a little.

            The thing is, Obama’s actions and revelations about the IRS, NSA, EPA, and the actions of numerous other branches of government do put many people into a mindset where the government is the clear and direct enemy of the people. Our whole Constitution is premised on the idea of trying to keep that from happening, and our history and beliefs (I’m grandfathering in Democrats in that even though they really don’t fit anymore) is built around the idea that if such a state does come to pass, an honest man will side with the people against government tyranny, however bloody that will be.

            Perhaps one of the key differences between Trent and US commenters in regards to that event is that the American militia movements, and any sympathy for them, whithered and died here after Oklahoma City because a wacko atheist egregiously overreached, although he did have a point about the government running around and burning buildings full of children with flame throwing tanks. There is zero domestic sympathy for McVeigh or his cause.

            But given recent scandals, it’s almost like Obama and Napolitano want to resurrect the militias just so they can have an excuse to do more cavity searches on underage girls flying off to see their grandmothers. If the government is not reined in, and effectively so, a lot of people are going to start advocating going over the line, and some of them are going to do it.

            The threat is going to grow as long as the government keeps being abusive of the ends laid out in the Declaration of Independence, and if the government loses the loyalty of the steely-eyed patriots then God help us all, because those were the only people paying attention to a century of carefully crafted, hardcore, patriotic messages like “better dead than red.”

            Once set upon that path, everything is going to blow up because the government won’t just hint that patriots are terrorist threats, it will treat them that way, and in response vast swaths of law abiding citizens, law enforcement, and the military will act on their conditioning and quasi-religious nationalism.

            The American government is given a large latitude of reflexive domestic trust and loyalty, and if Obama manages to squander that along with his squandering of our economy, or foreign policy standing, our international reputation, our military preparedness, our freedom, our energy security, our culture, and our mutual tolerance, then he will lose everything and go down in history as the greatest failure and pox this nation has ever known.

            Trust, once lost, is almost impossible to regain, and he’d already lost half the country (the half that actually fights) to begin with, which brings me back to the current topic.

            The Canadian police, by being all cutesy, have forever and possibly irreparably damaged the trust that rural Canadians bestowed upon them. They broke into people’s homes the moment someone in government suggested that they do so, busting through locked doors and other security measures, all to commit robbery during a time of crisis. In future, Canadians evacuating from a disaster would do well to booby trap their dwellings lest the police take advantage of the situation not only to steal people’s guns, but their jewelry, money, and credit cards as well, which has almost certainly happened in this case. I’m sure any losses will get blamed on the floodwaters, but it’s a given that people who will break down your door to steal your gun will steal anything else.

            The comment threads on the story are filled with Canadians who are making exactly those same assumptions, and who will never again trust their police or their government. A crisis brings out the best and worst in people, and Canadians are seeing a dark side of their police in this one, and actions taken during a crisis generate impressions that can last for generations. Hopefully their government learns from this action and won’t repeat it ever again.

          13. Well said Mr Turner.

            Bob-1 don’t leave again, just argue like a normal person on the internet.

        1. I’ll talk about once with him here, and drop it forever after that

          You LIE. There is no possible way that you would honor your own statement.

    1. After an earthquake in CA a number of houses were closed pending an OK by a city engineer that the house was safe to enter. They would let some people in on a case-by-case basis for emergency supplies. I seem to remember some looting.

      We have had mandatory evacuations for fires.

  2. We only have a Second Amendment as long as we are ready and willing to use it against tyrants.

    So far I haven’t seen evidence of that.

    1. I think the quote goes along the line of the tree of liberty needing to be fertilized from time to time with the blood of patriots and the blood of tyrants. That’s kind of a nice bar–the tyranny has to be nasty enough that a large number of people are willing to sacrifice themselves to end it. It hasn’t reached that point here yet. Maybe it’s like the hypothetical frog in the pot of water, and as long as the freedoms are eroded slowly enough the frog stays in the pot. Or maybe it’s more along the lines of an avalanche or straws on a camel’s back.

  3. Reading this story, it sounds really bizarre. Police broke into homes and stole guns? Seriously, what legal rationalization could they possibly have for that? And don’t they have better things to be doing in an emergency situation? I suppose I’ll have to read follow up articles to see what sort of reasoning, if any, was behind these actions.

    1. I see the Premier of Alberta is the likely instigator of this seizure.

      Premier Redford defends the police as she stands Thursday afternoon in the Cargill plant north of this town of 13,000.

      “I think what we need to understand is these are exceptional circumstances,” says the premier, adding the gun snatching move was talked about for other places.

      “In an emergency situation we need to have our police ensuring there is law and order.”

      Redford says she thinks in the fullness of time “we’ll find the system has run smoothly.”

      “At the end of the day, when we’re through all of this, people are going to be able to return to exactly their life and deal with these issues through the RCMP.”

      The premier says she’s sure individuals will have questions but “at the end of the day I want to remind people we are still in an emergency situation.”

      “There are dangerous things happening. We want to make sure our officers, our sheriffs, our RCMP are protecting life and limb and protecting public order and that has to be the first priority.”

      1. Karl, I don’t think she’s competent enough to be behind the seizures, but she is certainly dumb enough to support them. We call her Redfraud, because she’s a socialist and a liar who slipped up the middle when the two heavyweight candidates were slugging it out. Years of work for the UN sealed her political convictions.

        The town of High River was as close as I’ve ever seen anyone in Canada to open revolt. The cops are lucky none of them got shot or run over. The entire government attitude was/is disdainful tyranny, punishing a town that voted for the opposition. The governing “Progressive Conservative” party will never win another seat there.

    2. Police broke into homes and stole guns? Seriously, what legal rationalization could they possibly have for that?

      Apparently during a disaster, the government has the right to procure any property they so desire and return it without compensation whenever they determine the disaster to be over.

      From the headline: “First they told High River residents they couldn’t go home … then they took their guns”

      If you pay attention to the facts, the only ones stating that RCMP just took guns is the RCMP. The residents have no idea if anything else was taken or how thorough the search of homes conducted to find the firearms. This is a flood event. Residents may never know what really happened to family heirlooms and other property that, like their firearms, are no longer found in their home. You can also bet that most residents left evidence of ownership with their firearms.

      From a US perspective, this wouldn’t just be a violation of the 2nd Amendment, but also of the 4th and 5th Amendment. These people, who are under no suspicion of a crime had their homes searched and property seized without compensation or trial. Those violations are much larger than just the 2nd Amendment, and really that should be the primary issue. This is a disaster to basic human rights in Canada, and the Premier should be held accountable.

      1. She will be held accountable next election. She only won by the skin of her teeth last time, and the Wild Rose party will have had four years to show people they aren’t the wackos they were painted to be by the media last time around. Funny thing here in Alberta, when a government loses an election the party never ever wins again.

  4. Rand, was your point about the 2nd Amendment that in the US, there is a specific right to own guns, whereas in Canada, guns are just another sort of possession, like a car, which is legal, and which might be regulated, but which has no specific constitutional status? If so, then I see I was wrong – you weren’t threatening the police. (I don’t think a Canadian 2nd amendment-type guarantee would have stopped the police in this case, but maybe it would give the gun owners better legal recourse now, after the seizure.)

    1. Wow. You’re like a rogue prosecutor cherry-picking through other people’s commentary looking for things to attack them for. Your last name wouldn’t be O’Brien would it? Are you looking for people to drag off to Room 101?

      1. Don’t give him too much credit. Bob might dream that his destiny is to be an O’Brien in an ideal TotalSoc world, but the truth is he’d be just another drone, mindlessly chanting approved slogans until the next batch of approved slogans come along… his type are dirt cheap and easily replaced.

    2. Spare any outrage for the actions of government? Do you think police in the USA should go door to door searching and seizing guns like so many other Democrats think?

  5. I left a pretty pointed, vile comment at the story, and I doubt they’ll approve it.

  6. I figured Bob-1 would check in here on this topic. I get the impression that he pretty typically exemplifies the obsedient-loyal-serf/Stockholm Syndrome mentality that I have frequently encountered among Canadians of my acquaintance.

  7. Bob-1 is right, anyone who resists the government’s necessary need to confiscate everything you own and stick IRS anal probes up your ass is evil. The Almighty and August USG shall be obeyed or else you are a racist.

  8. How did they know who had guns? This is why gun rights advocats don’t want the government having master lists of who owns what guns.

    What is the rationale? Does the Canadian government hold guns in such high regard that they would break into people’s houses to prevent them from getting water damage? Or does the Canadian government hold their police in such contempt that they could not stop looters? And if the second is the case, why not rescue all important possessions?

    Knowing how people store guns and how police do searches, it will be a toss up between what caused the most damage, the police or the flood.

  9. Remember that the RCMP are in no way elected. There is no local accountability. Police/sheriffs in Canada are never elected.
    There will be obfuscation, denials and ultimately no one will be held to account.
    It may have been under the direction of the Premier of the province but could just as likely be from a mid to high level police bureaucrat. No one will likely lose their job.
    The Prime Minister of Canada has spoken out against this though. The same leader who promised and delivered on abolishing the long gun registry.

    1. The RCMP isn’t quite like the FBI; they are hired by the province to do rural policing, whereas Calgary and Edmonton have their own police forces. We can also fire them and bring in our own provincial police force (like Ontario) if it ever comes to that. Ultimately the buck stops in the Premier’s office.

  10. Guys, the pointlessness of “arguing” with Bob-1 and Jim becomes clear when you realize that they, like all slaves of the Revolution, are not interested in argument. They are here to promote their god, the State, and nothing you can say or do is going to convince them that their god is evil.

    The time for argument and politics is long past in America. Argument and politics are only possible between parties who agree on the fundamentals of reality. What is a human being? What is the greatest good? Whence law? By what standard are we to make value judgments? Revolutionaries/liberals do not agree with the rest of us on these questions. They are infected with the Luciferian idea that man can define reality for himself. There can be no compromise, no discussion with this. Flaunt their definitions of human life, race, economic fairness, justice, and liberty (as defined by the power elite) and you are evil, and are thus in their eyes fair game to be destroyed as an enemy of all humanity.

    Debate is pointless. Politics is over. We are in a religious war now, and only one side can win. Make no mistake: they will not stop until their definitions or reality are imposed on each and every human being alive. And sooner or later you and you and you are going to have to choose sides. There are only two choices. Which faith will you follow: the God of our ancestors, or Man Deified?

    In all the long centuries since the fall of Christendom, the forces of the Enemy have been defeated only twice: the Reconquista and the Spanish Civil War. Revolutionaries (aka “liberals”) are like Muslims: the only way to win an argument with them is to use Method 1492. The Revolution that threatens to do to the world what the Spanish Republic did to Spain can only be crushed in one way: the Spirit of 1936. We will either profit by these examples or watch the human race be stripped of its sanctity as our enemies turn the world into a giant Gulag.

  11. Googling around, I see that this isn’t the first time that the RCMP seized firearms. The story is about a similar search and seizure operation during some 2011 fires at Slave Lake, Alberta.

    Officers are entering homes with broken windows or unlocked doors to ensure the home hasn’t been robbed or vandalized, police say.

    “We are not just entering houses arbitrarily, but we do have a duty to ensure the safety of the area,” said Tim Taniguchi with Slave Lake RCMP. “We’re also assisting fire services with entering homes that pose a fire risk.”

    So far, investigators have not discovered anything criminal in the abandoned town and region, said Taniguchi.

    RCMP searching the homes have come across several firearms, along with ammunition and those items have been seized due to safety risks.

    “The officers have come across several firearms and have seized that property,” said Taniguchi. “Until those sort of items are cleared, it’s not safe for residents to return.”

    Taniguchi said an ammunition magazine heated up and exploded, sending shots firing during the initial sweep of the area, while media were inside the town on a tour.

    “Part of the reason we are going through people’s houses is to find these things that are dangerous,” he said.

    Sounds to me like someone at least in Alberta is trying to establish a precedent for searching homes for firearms during disasters and emergencies.

Comments are closed.