The guilty verdict against Julius Malema may be a victory for the South African Firearms Control Act, but from a libertarian point of view, it is a loss for individual liberty.
Chaos and anarchy is only unlawful if it has a negative and direct effect on another or other people.
What Malema did when he fired the shots, did not cause any chaos nor anarchy. It did cause some jubilation amongst his silly supporters. It also caused a frenzy of negativity to his detractors. And it was a stupid bit of misdirected showmanship.
My favourite example of state overreach is to do with "licences". As a kid I had to fork out part of my pocket money to but a license for my bicycle, my Mum and Dad had to have a licence for our dogs. Under current law I have to register my swimming pool. I have to have an ID card and a license to drive my car. My car has to be licensed. I could go on....
In each of these cases the state demands that I pay for these "licenses".
What is (or was) the need for these patronising state demands? How are (were) they policed? Has the licensing of firearms, owners of firearms, drivers, motor cars or swimming pools saved any lives or reduced injury? Did dogs stop biting the postman and milkman (God bless their souls)?
Have these licences reduced "chaos" and "anarchy"? I think not...the state sells these limitations on false promises to buy votes and rip us off financially in the process.
The biggest weakness of democracy is that unlimited power is granted to government to enter into our daily lives and then to allow them control our behaviour. Less government is the only good government.
Sorry, no. Handling a gun in this careless way is reckless and could have resulted in serious injury. That it hasn't is just luck. This behaviour is like driving on the wrong side of the road - which is fine if there is no other traffic but is highly dangerous and irresponsible and puts lots of other people at risk.
Chaos and anarchy is only unlawful if it has a negative and direct effect on another or other people.
What Malema did when he fired the shots, did not cause any chaos nor anarchy. It did cause some jubilation amongst his silly supporters. It also caused a frenzy of negativity to his detractors. And it was a stupid bit of misdirected showmanship.
My favourite example of state overreach is to do with "licences". As a kid I had to fork out part of my pocket money to but a license for my bicycle, my Mum and Dad had to have a licence for our dogs. Under current law I have to register my swimming pool. I have to have an ID card and a license to drive my car. My car has to be licensed. I could go on....
In each of these cases the state demands that I pay for these "licenses".
What is (or was) the need for these patronising state demands? How are (were) they policed? Has the licensing of firearms, owners of firearms, drivers, motor cars or swimming pools saved any lives or reduced injury? Did dogs stop biting the postman and milkman (God bless their souls)?
Have these licences reduced "chaos" and "anarchy"? I think not...the state sells these limitations on false promises to buy votes and rip us off financially in the process.
The biggest weakness of democracy is that unlimited power is granted to government to enter into our daily lives and then to allow them control our behaviour. Less government is the only good government.
We are compelled to have limits to individual liberty and making provision for potential harm, as the alternative is chaos and anarchy.
Sorry, no. Handling a gun in this careless way is reckless and could have resulted in serious injury. That it hasn't is just luck. This behaviour is like driving on the wrong side of the road - which is fine if there is no other traffic but is highly dangerous and irresponsible and puts lots of other people at risk.
Liberty does have limits
Yeah, it is where the limits should be drawn...I prefer them to be drawn by a devolved common law legal system rather than centralised statutory law.
Common sense also has no limits...