Results 1 to 20 of 193

Thread: The Second Ammendment Lobby and Police Safety

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheCurmudgeon View Post
    Stan, the funny thing is that American's, as a group, have more rights (or more correctly, fewer governmental restrictions) than they did fifty years ago. Segregation is one example, marihuana, profanity, along with interracial marriage, birth control, and any number of other "blue laws" that have been relaxed. I am not sure that people today would recognize the America of the 1950's. Now on the flip side of that, and in line with Carl's comments on religion, many of these blue laws had a religious basis. It is not so much that people are becoming less free as it is that the traditional religious based restrictions on society are falling away, perhaps creating a feeling of being lost, without a harbor in the storm of social change. I really can't say. But it could be a contributing factor.
    And the good citizens of the Soviet Union had far more rights than those of the US, back when they were around. Most of the new "rights" are embodied in "restrictions" of course.

    What you're missing, is even a rudimentary understand of the American political system. For all these "new rights" to be brought about, the Federal government had to wipe their *sses with the 10th Amendment of the US Constitution.

    The 800 pound gorilla that no one appears to be noticing in the room is that local government and state government is being steam-rollered in nearly every aspect of our lives by the Federal government, thereby effectively dis-empowering local governance. This, of course is how big government statists inadvertently create insurgencies.

    It's so bad that local schools have their lunch menu dictated to them by an unelected tyrant whose only job qualification is having sex with the President. Never mind that the mere existence of a Federal Department of Education is a violation of the 10th Amendment, as well as others.

    On the militarization of the police: We no longer have police forces that do police work. Talking to officers in our small (7500 - 25,000 population) towns in Iowa, they are all either ON the tactics team or just biding their time on patrol until they GET on the tactics team. Our 15,000 person town just got their first MRAP, and a neighboring town of 20,000 just used their Tac Team to tear up a house in order to make a $1000 credit card fraud arrest. Which they failed to make, since the perpetrators didn't live in that house.

    What we are creating in the US, as urban centers become more powerful, the federal government becomes more centralized and tied to "control" is the perfect storm for an insurgency. A state of affairs which has happened before, with near boring regularity as central governments cease being responsive and viewed as legitimate. Personally, I doubt the legitimacy of Michele Obama to dictate that a First grade girl and a senior boy on the football team eat exactly the same 1700 calorie a day diet.

    Blaming the armed protestors and the AR/AK enthusiasts for the Fed government screwing up governance is getting it exactly backwards, imo.
    Last edited by 120mm; 04-07-2014 at 03:30 AM.

  2. #2
    Council Member TheCurmudgeon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    1,117

    Default

    120, I understand the power of the 10th amendment, even if the Supreme Court does not. I just feel that, whatever power it had died after the civil war. Even so, the conditions that exist seem ripe for an insurgent or counter-culture attack on the traditional seats of power.
    Last edited by TheCurmudgeon; 04-07-2014 at 03:51 AM.
    "I can change almost anything ... but I can't change human nature."

    Jon Osterman/Dr. Manhattan
    ---

  3. #3
    Council Member carl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Denver on occasion
    Posts
    2,460

    Default

    Hey 120mm! You're back. Glad to see you. Good post too. Where you been?

    Now a general comment.

    I am as concerned about militarization of state an local police as anybody but in the case of the riot police shown in the photo above I really don't see how you can get away with looking like anything other than a riot control officer. A helmet, face shield, gas mask, lots of padding and a big stick are sort of the minimum if you expect guys to stand there and take it, as riot officers are sometimes expected to do. And anyway I don't see how being dressed and equipped like that is provocative. The reason for that getup and equipment is to give the officers multiple options short of shooting when rocks are flying their way. Of course it doesn't take much to provoke people who want to be provoked, and the UNM hangers on want to be provoked.

    David:

    I think those guys in the photo are Bernalillo County sheriffs officers. That is what it looked like from all the photos I looked at.
    Last edited by carl; 04-07-2014 at 05:33 AM.
    "We fight, get beat, rise, and fight again." Gen. Nathanael Greene

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •