The only surprising part of this is who was going to say it out loud first. When you have thought control laws you automatically make the state the arbiter of what you think. We have had thought control for a long time now. Hate crimes, intent laws, Rico, baby Ricos, one can be punished for what it is presumed he thought or was GOING to do. You can have assets seized because it has been determined you were going to use them in an unlawful manner. Just having too much money in your pocket is now proof that you were going to break the law. One cannot prove one did not have a certain thought, but if the state is the arbiter, through legislation, they don't have to prove you did. After all, arbiters are arbitrary. That also relieves them of the pesky duty to gather evidence of a crime, or even wait till a crime is actually committed.
This is a case where the cops,the mayor, and the city council should be under armed siege at risk of all the penalty that suggests until they surrender themselves for trial. However, I fear our liberal brother of Wisconsin will be "reasonable" and in the majority thank the state for "protecting" them. Sort of like being a protected class in prison or on a plantation of the old south, ain't it?
Get ready, we're going to see a lot more of it. But not at my house. I am not that peaceful. Nor do I ever intend to be so peaceful that I surrender my manhood to thugs of any stripe. Dress code not withstanding, a thug is a thug.
The only surprising part of this is who was going to say it out loud first. When you have thought control laws you automatically make the state the arbiter of what you think. We have had thought control for a long time now. Hate crimes, intent laws, Rico, baby Ricos, one can be punished for what it is presumed he thought or was GOING to do. You can have assets seized because it has been determined you were going to use them in an unlawful manner. Just having too much money in your pocket is now proof that you were going to break the law. One cannot prove one did not have a certain thought, but if the state is the arbiter, through legislation, they don't have to prove you did. After all, arbiters are arbitrary. That also relieves them of the pesky duty to gather evidence of a crime, or even wait till a crime is actually committed.
ReplyDeleteThis is a case where the cops,the mayor, and the city council should be under armed siege at risk of all the penalty that suggests until they surrender themselves for trial. However, I fear our liberal brother of Wisconsin will be "reasonable" and in the majority thank the state for "protecting" them. Sort of like being a protected class in prison or on a plantation of the old south, ain't it?
Get ready, we're going to see a lot more of it. But not at my house. I am not that peaceful. Nor do I ever intend to be so peaceful that I surrender my manhood to thugs of any stripe. Dress code not withstanding, a thug is a thug.