The slippery slope to totalitarianism

I just noticed one of the comments on the petition page and it caught my interest.

“the government are pricing me out of the only sport i enjoy . try making people apply for a football supporters licence, more people are killed and injured in football violence than with an air gun”

Now again I don’t believe in any infringement of peoples civil liberties or increasing red tape that affects law abiding majorities more than irresponsible minorities but it’s an interesting thought isn’t it.

Imagine asking all the anti gun people out they who are football fans(I know a few) if they would support paying for a licence and having to provide good reason to watch a football game and that you could only do it in proper supporters clubs. They would hit the roof and go on about how ridiculous that sounds yet they support the same intrusive measures against another group of people who want to enjoy their sports and hobbies.

Perhaps then they will see the light and it might penetrate their brains as to the total sham this is.

100 years ago if they talked about licencing shotguns it would have been thrown out as ridiculous, 50 years ago talk of licencing airguns would have been laughed at.

Maybe 50 years in the future you will have to have a licence for your football games and every other aspect of your life will be controlled. Perhaps once the media and Government have whipped up a big enough frenzy it will become law. “Because something has to be done”

People had best be careful what they wish for because if you start to let Governments regulate every single thing just for the sake of it then we are on the slippery slope to totalitarianism.

I believe it has already started and if all the gun owners do not take a stand on this who knows where it will end. You can try and keep your head down and say nothing and hope they will leave you alone but guess what? If you do nothing and the law changes you won’t have your guns or your sports anyway. The only way is to stand up and be counted. Fight for it or lose it.

I’ll close with my own opinion on how to combat violence and crime in our society. Identify root causes of crime and try to eliminate them and punish those that ACTUALLY break laws and cause harm or lose to others. How many laws do we have now that create offences from nothing?

It is time to reclaim our liberties.

I apologise for the rather long rant and I’m sure some will perhaps disagree but please discuss it and leave any comments you have.


8 responses to “The slippery slope to totalitarianism

  1. kelvingrove2013

    “more people are killed and injured in football violence than with an air gun”

    Any idea if there are any statistics for this or is someone having an unsubstantiated rant?

    Trying to draw similarities between football supporting and gun usage is tortuous and doesn’t work.

    I agree that here are too many laws being passed that seem to infringe civil liberties where there are more than adequate laws already in place.

    Politicians do like to be seen to be doing something, no matter how useless.

    • Hi Kelvingrove,

      I don’t have any statistics on hand and I’m not arguing for increased restrictions on football. I’m drawing a comparison to attitudes towards gun ownership and why “it should be banned or heavily regulated etc” yet if someone proposed the same kind of restrictions against football supporters for a minority who cause trouble(I would put money on it that more people are indeed injured intentionally through football violence than airguns) they would immediately denounce the idea as nonsense, affect a law abiding majority more so than criminals and effectively ruin their chosen sport/hobby.

      People are being inconsistent with their arguments and not thinking rationally. This doesn’t just apply to football fans but many people from many walks of life, they support strict regulations against us whilst remaining relatively ignorant and misinformed on the subject. They will say that if we are genuinely responsible and care about reducing crime we MUST accept these rules and regulations yet if we tried to apply the same argument to them they would not listen.

      It is the hypocrisy of people that I dislike. Another example I could provide is golf, I have discussed the matter with several people who play golf and they support this licence proposal and like to point out about the murder of the young boy that has helped kick start this debate and use emotive arguments. When I point out that this is the only case of someone being convicted of murder with an airgun in the Scotland and that a mother murdered her child with a golf club why wouldn’t they support the same restrictions to golf clubs? Surely if they cared so much about innocent young lives and public safety they would be quite happy to get a background check, mental health check and be forced to provide good reason to own a set of clubs.

      Their arguments simply don’t hold up.

      • kelvingrove2013

        My point was that if you are going to try and make compelling arguments in favour of your case, making up phrases which sound as if they might be true but are in fact unprovable does not help your cause and indeed weakens any argument as those opposed to what you say will use the inaccuracies as a stick to beat you with.

        For example from me asking my question about stats you have made the comment, “I would put money on it that more people are indeed injured intentionally through football violence than airguns”

        Now you have introduced the word “intentionally” which was not in the original quote and dropped the word “killed”

        Too easy to pick apart what you are saying while ignoring your point for those that disagree.

        The golf club comparison doesn’t bare scrutiny either.

      • Hi Kelvin,

        Why doesn’t the golf club analogy stand up to scrutiny either?

        I don’t think you quite understand what i’m trying to say here. I am trying to say that if people are going to use the argument that things should be restricted for public safety or to lower crime eg airguns then they should apply the same restrictions to everything.

        I believe the golf club analogy does stand up because it happened. A young child was murdered with a golf club yet there isn’t the same mindless calls to restrict golf clubs. Unfortunately in this world there are bad people and bad things will happen. Punishing law abiding people does not cure that. The only cures are to have a strong enough deterrent to perhaps make the bad people think twice and to try and tackle the root causes of social problems.

        I should make clear the comment about football related violence was not my own it was a comment I picked out from the petition page comments as it made me think about the hypocrisy and double standards that people take. I did not claim it to be 100% factual it was merely what got me thinking about the subject.

        I do appreciate the feedback though and would like to ask what you think would have been a better way of puting it?

  2. Doesn’t bear scrutiny… oh okay, do we just accept your view, or will you be providing supporting evidence? In essence what your saying is “I disagree”, well so what, do you want a sticker or something.

  3. kelvingrove2013

    “In essence what your saying is “I disagree””

    No in essence I am saying that the golf analogy is a poor one.

  4. kelvingrove2013

    I appreciate the comment was not yours but my point was if you are trying to make an argument those that disagree will seek out holes and flaws and by using such unverifiable phrases it leaves you open to attack.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s