What Went Wrong With… Post-9/11 Laws, Gun Control, Militarised Police, & Labelling Someone A Terrorist?

A collage of militarized police with the text "Give Up Your Guns, We're Here To Protect You" by

So many sellouts came out of the woodwork on and after 9/11. So affected by the overblown events of that day, this multitude of morons without thinking of the consequences, were fine with their freedoms being eroded for the sake of so-called “protection against terrorism”. 9/11 brought out every shade of fool, not only white working class imbeciles but also middle-class, black, brown, and yellow idiots. “Please, please, take away our rights so you can protect us!” they all exclaimed to their leaders. But all of these sellouts who thought that their government would only take the freedom away from foreigners or Muslims were sadly mistaken, and their collective prejudice has now backfired – now your beloved government is coming for you too, what goes around comes around. Flash forward to the present day and all of you backstabbers can now be included under the umbrella term of “terrorist”, as long as the powers that be want an excuse to take away your rights that’s what they’ll label you. So whether you’re part of a protest group, a subversive political movement, or a Militia Organisation, you’re all potentially terrorists… good going.

You’ll hear this question again and again from the media – should we label a mass shooter a “terrorist”? And of course by definition yes we should, but since the people have now given the government the ability to apply a different set of laws to a “terrorist” than a “normal” criminal, these exceptions are being exploited more and more. Soon, if not already, anybody who disagrees with the Police, the Military, the Federal Government, can and will be labelled a “terrorist” and that person’s freedoms can be stripped from them without any evidence or trial, all thanks to those post-9/11 laws you were all so quick to approve. In the future, anybody the establishment wants censored or anybody deemed a threat to the status quo will simply be labelled a “terrorist” and thanks to the idiotic laws the public have supported over the years, any “suspect” can be surveilled, their property can be searched without a warrant, they can be stopped from buying a gun, and be unable to fly, basically be unable to live freely without even a shred of evidence against them. My oh my, that sure sounds like the land of the free.

This type of reactionary stripping of freedom of course now extends to firearm laws and so-called gun control, because a decade and a half after September 11th 2001, these imbeciles are at it again. After a media-plugged shooting, you’ll hear another generation of fuckwits plead with the government – “Please, oh please, once again, just because a few people have shot a few other people, take away guns from all the innocent people!”. Have you learnt nothing from 9/11?

It’s strange that people don’t take into account that after these amazing, all-protecting, liberty-destroying post-9/11 laws, terrorism has actually increased, a report by the Global Terrorism Index confirmed this a while back. So what did all this totalitarian-cum-draconian-ism achieve but more bloodshed and less freedom? People never learn from their mistakes, and as soon as someone shoots up a church or a club, or drives a vehicle into a crowd, people react the same way as before. What the fuck is wrong with everybody?

A small bunch of terrorists allegedly take over a plane so now everybody is retina and body-scanned, fingerprinted, searched, and treated like they’re potential terrorists too. Someone shoots a few people and we point at the weapon used in the crime and try to ban it. The reaction by the masses is so startling and so warped that it boggles the mind. And yet these idiots can’t see that their response to an isolated tragedy is so skewed that it would be like banning sharks from the oceans just because a few people have been bitten. By this logic at some point everything will be banned, I mean what’s next? Do you want trucks banned from Nice or pressure cookers banned from Boston? No, because that would be ludicrous, but let innocent people be groped, strip-searched, and detained at airports, that’s absolutely fine. And assault weapons, sure ban all of them, a high-calibre weapon is only ever used by terrorists, right?

This of course goes side-by-side and hand-in-hand with giving more control to the government. Innocent people can no longer fly without being treated like criminals, and soon people won’t be able to purchase guns to defend themselves. Parallel to this, the Department Of Homeland Security is created, the Transportation Security Administration is created, the Military is beefed up, and the Police is given powers and weapons that no member of law enforcement should ever be given. And whilst on the topic of militarised Police, let’s not forget that they recently used a bomb strapped to a robot to kill the alleged sniper in Dallas, and nobody batted an eyelid! It’s strange that everybody is calling for civilians’ firearms to be taken away but they’re fine with an ever-increasing militarised Police Force who have proved over the years to be the most incompetent and corrupt bunch of people ever to carry a gun.

This idea that gun crime is the biggest threat to society today is constantly pushed by the mainstream media, but while they show you mass shootings in southern states (which by and large have the least restrictive gun laws) they fail to point out that the state of Alaska has the biggest percentage of gun ownership and the highest rate of gun deaths in the United States. But when you look closely at Alaska, you discover that whilst it boasts the highest number of ownership and deaths from firearms, 80% of them are suicides, so actually gun crime isn’t all about mass shooting and terrorism, in fact the statistics are misleading. In the case of Alaska would banning the gun protect the community or would it simply stop someone from exercising their right to leave this shitty world? A gun can be used to kill innocent people, but it can also be used for defence, for recreation, and for committing suicide, and surely these other uses outweigh an isolated act of “terrorism”?

It’s funny but every time the military kills a random person abroad or bombs some innocent family half way round the globe, the majority of people turn a blind eye, but one little murder or hate-crime on American soil and everybody’s quick to label that person a terrorist. If you live in certain Middle-Eastern countries, the United States Army is a terrorist to you, if you’re a person of colour in the United States, then a Police Officer is a terrorist to you, a terrorist is defined as “a person who uses terrorism” and terrorism is “the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce”. That makes the military and by extension the government the biggest terrorist organisation on the globe, the Army commits terrorism on a daily basis but does anybody call for their disarmament? No, ’cause if you wear a certain oh-so-special uniform, all of a sudden you’re free to kill with impunity.

My point is that giving more power to the government only leads to corruption of that power, and taking away freedoms from the people only leads to an inability to resist that corruption, this disproportionate power will only lead to more and more oppression, it will never result in safety like people seem to think. In addition, when we allow the law to make a special case of someone i.e. labelling a certain crime or a certain type of person “different” than everybody else, we destroy the very concept of law. Law is supposed to be impartial, look at Lady Justice – she wears a blindfold over her eyes and she carries a balance scale in one hand, you’ll note that she’s not peaking from under her blindfold with one eye as she water-boards someone with her other hand.

These moronic people who wave their flag and chant “U-S-A” at the top of their lungs, those who salute the Army and the Police whilst ignoring their own dwindling rights really need to stop drinking the fake-patriotic and jingoistic Kool Aid. These pricks talk about freedom and liberty but they reduce these words to a cliché every time they utter them, they talk about America like it’s the epitome of freedom but they wouldn’t know freedom if it was written on a scroll, signed by 56 people, and shoved up their backside. And speaking of backsides, I’ll laugh my arse off when all the post-9/11 sellouts who acted like those undemocratic laws wouldn’t affect them, all get locked up without a trial and without due process. That would be poetic justice, although justice isn’t a concept that most of these people are familiar with.

Fire Power.

6 replies »

  1. On point. The media specialise in fear mongering and the sheeple are now herding themselves. The West are constantly meddling in non western affairs and not for the noble reasons they fabricate, then they question why ‘terrorism’ is on the rise. I believe the majority of what is reported is staged and the genuine cases of shootings or terrorism are reactions to the actions of the West. I’m not by any means condoning any kind of violence but it astounds me how when the whole Charlie Hebdo thing happened, everyone was tagging it and sympathising but when the Turkey bombings happened, the Turks received far less attention and support. America/Europe/Israel and Saudi Arabia are the worst kind of hypocrites, they fund and support actual terrorism, killing (innocent) people daily but we don’t see much of that, we see what they want us to see because it serves their agenda – inciting control through fear. So when you see the next act of terror being reported, don’t be so quick to blame a whole group of people, don’t let your fears misguide you, THINK about what you’re seeing, think about why it’s being reported in the way that it is and ask what your governement is doing to other people in the world on your behalf.

    • Exactly, people never look at the bigger picture. I always hear people ponder what this world be like for their children (when referring to the environment) but when it comes to the corruption of law, they couldn’t give a toss. Fifty years from now there’ll be a generation that’ll be the most oppressed and subservient to the state than ever before. Why react so unintelligently to a televised event (real or fake) that our very lives are affected years after the fact? I never understand when the masses call for the removal of our rights under the guise of “freedom” – it makes no sense whatsoever.

  2. Agreed and it is a shame. Sadly, there will never be peace and harmony in the world but being aware of the bigger picture is so important because as you say; when people are ignorantly backing acts/laws out of fear, they are in fact relinquising those same freedoms they wish to protect so it’s great that you’re raising awareness on these issues.

  3. I used to support gun control, but after giving it a closer look, I came to realise that it is pointless. It will not stop shootings. I can understand why people might support it, but given that the government is corrupt (even more corrupt with the authoritarian Trump as president), gun control will not do anything for anyone.

    • There is no reason to support gun control in the first place. It goes against the second amendment and is one step closer to taking control of the people’s rights. If people don’t have guns then it’s easier to be dominated and scared of a growing police state, am I right?

      Another fallacy of gun control is that the politicians say that it will decrease crime. But criminals no matter what will never turn them in, just like how drug dealers who have possession of illegal substances like heroin will keep dealing them without getting caught. They are just looking for people to fall for the trap, so we can be tortured and branded like cattle.

  4. I don’t like guns and would rather not live in a country with high gun-ownership. However, I don’t see gun bans nor repossessions as particularly likely, and some countries have high gun ownership without having even a fraction of the shootings the US has, so it’s clearly possible to pass laws that make the country safer without taking guns away from the people who use them safely, so that’s where I focus my efforts.

    The primary issue with gun crimes is how criminals get guns in the first place. Republican dogma is that illegal guns are stolen, which is bunk. (As if the entire black market gun industry could be sustained through petty theft.) I’m reciting this from memory and haven’t checked the statistics recently, but I BELIEVE, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF), that about 50% of illegal gun ownership comes from a person who can’t pass a background check having a friend buy the gun for them. Another 40% comes from people posing as gun dealerships buy shipments of guns from wholesalers and then sell them on the black market. Only about 10% come from theft. This isn’t accounting for guns that are purchased “legally” at gun shows where background checks aren’t enforced.

    In the vast majority of cases, the people selling the guns know that a decent percentage of their sales are going towards criminal activity, and steps could be taken to make sales that are going to end up in the hands of criminals one step down the line much harder. But there’s a lot of money to be made in selling guns to people who will resell them to criminals, and the gun lobby automatically and emphatically opposes any and all gun legislation, and Republicans are in the pocket of the gun lobby. So nothing improves.

What Went Wrong Or Right With This Article? (spam & shite will be deleted)

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.