Police Want Semi Autos: Disarmed Citizens Can’t Use Pepper Spray, Tasers, Crossbows

It is a dangerous dynamic in society when a ruling class is heavily armed, and the citizen class is heavily disarmed.

No matter how apparently civil the government is, at their will they can pass laws that infringe upon the most basic rights. They can force almost anything on a disarmed people with heavily armed police and military.

In Australia, the power differential between citizens and the government is getting severe.

People there are not allowed to own guns for self defense, and are barely granted licenses to hunt with them. They aren’t allowed to own pepper spray, tasers, or even crossbows (without a license, for crossbows).

Research it. You’ll find headlines like this one, “I faced a 14-year jail sentence for carrying pepper spray.”

Shooting incidents such as the Port Arthur Massacre of 1996 and the more recent 2015 Parramatta shooting and 2014 Sydney hostage crisis have been abused by the state and their media to justify disarming citizens, while heavily arming the police.

They even cite mass shootings that occurred in completely different parts of the world, as why the police need more weapons in Australia. The Paris terror attacks of 2015 were cited as the reason why police should have semi-automatic handguns and AR-15’s, in 2016 when a West Australia police union asked for them.

According to Perth Now:

“HUNDREDS more cops should be armed with semi-automatic rifles to stop “active shooter” attacks in Perth, the WA Police Union has told Police Commissioner Karl O’Callaghan.

So-called “active shooter” situations are mass shootings involving one or more gunmen, such as the Paris terror attacks in November, which killed 130 people.

WA Police Union president George Tilbury said many members were concerned the semi-automatic Glock pistol — the standard firearm used by cops in WA — was inadequate for active shooter attacks.”

True, it probably is inadequate: having a monopoly on violence where only the police can strike back against active shooters is inherently inadequate.

In places where everyone is armed, “active shooter” situations get resolved quickly.

Police are never on the scene fast enough to help people in danger. A society where everyone is armed and practicing self defense has been repeatedly proven to be safer than a society where the state has a monopoly on violence.

The consequence of having such a power differential between citizens and police is the slow loss of all freedom the state can convince people they don’t need.

The consequence is, imports to Australia are heavily regulated (domestic sanctions you could say), the government takes children away from parents for anything they can think of, people are invasively tested on the street to see if they are using cannabis, and people are searched with drug dogs on the street.

The consequence is a slow march toward being completely owned by the state, with every single facet of life being regulated, monitored, and managed by them. The consequence is a loss of the ability to raise your own children, and Australian government supporting media is openly calling for an end to parental rights.

The social engineers and powers in this government are cultivating a docile, perfectly malleable culture, as governments and their counterparts are doing all over the world, and have done throughout all of recorded history.

Even if you think you can tolerate the laws that exist in Australia now, what happens when they pass a law that you really can’t tolerate? Who will pose any kind of opposition to them when no one is armed but the state?

(Image credit: YouTube, Metal Sucks, Home Security Superstore, Archery Manufacturer)