Militarized Police Departments

[Calabrio]

I couldnt agree more.

Comparing a 100 year old picture of a Chicago police officer to a photo of a U.S. Capitol Police is totally ridiculous and meaningless.

Earlier in this thread, I made a reference to the police officers being completely out armed by the bad guys at the turn of the century. Those same police officers in 1915 were completely ineffective when it came to preventing bank robberies and other violent crimes. Bad guys, like Bonnie and Clyde for example, simply purchased BAR automatic rifles.

Were we safer because the police were more poorly armed and defenseless against the criminals? Was it wrong to equip police departments with BAR rifles? Does giving the police radios result in them being a repressive force?

If dealing with a BAD cop of some kind, are you any less dead when beaten to death with a stick, shot by a .38 snub nose, or it's an MP5 round that finishes you off?

As I've stated repeatedly, the author misses the point by making the way the police look the issue of his article and not the policies they are mandated to enforce. Further, he is incorrect for saying that we should disarm law enforcement in order to make us safer. Personally, my hunch is that the author would really like to see ALL weapons banned, in both the hands of civilians and law enforcement.

 

[fossten]

Don't make yourself a victim here and stop mischaracterizing everything I say as some kind of personal attack and thus avoiding the substance of everything else I've said.

So you're denying that you called me bizarre and a conspiracy theorist?

The mere fact that there are "more people that think like you" than I may or may not realize is absolutely meaningless. There are more socialists and anarchists than I may realize, but that doesn't strengthen their argument.

And now you are implying that I'm a socialist and an anarchist? Just throw everything you can think of against the wall, eh?

Additionally, what aspersions am I casting on the "gun culture." I am a trained and licensed fire arm and handgun owner. I'm extremely familiar and active within the gun owning community. The only culture I may not be knowledgeable about would be the conspiratorial loony types that act outside of the legal system while developing ridiculous conspiratorial plots involving black helicopters and evil jack-booted police officers.

Again with your coarse rhetoric. Who are you calling loony? Examples, please.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were NOT figments of anybody's imagination.

Many cities have installed cameras on their streets. It's been deemed to be constitutional because it's a public space. Whether you think that this is a good or bad thing is not related to whether or not you think that the police and law enforcement officers are dangerous thugs hell bent on denying civil rights to the gun owning meth addicts who's half-stories so often find their way to the internet.

It is NOT irrelevant; it is DIRECTLY related to the term "police state." You saying so doesn't make it irrelevant. What authority are you using to make this claim?

Do we need to be constantly vigilant when protect our constitutionally protected rights? Absolutely. Does that having anything to do with your so-called "militarization" of the Police Department, when it's defined by good gear and tactical efficiency. No.

Good gear and tactical efficiency? That's what you call it?

How are out rights better protected when the police resemble the Keystone Cops?

There's your false straw man again. Either they have to be the Gestapo or the Keystone cops. No middle ground here with you. Interesting. The truth is that there should be jurisdictional limits on what law enforcement can and can't do, and that should include what kinds of crime they should target. Local police forces should NOT be MILITARY. That's what the MILITARY is for. If there is a crime problem that is out of their league, that is what the FBI or the MILITARY is for. Call them in. But don't cross the line from "protect and serve" to "dominate and destroy." You really, truly don't see the link between militarization of your "friendly, neighborhood beat cop" and the growing distrust and outright fear of them by the public?

Not necessary. Given my understanding of that book, I expect myself to be in agreement with it. I've yet to read it, but do intend to.

It's like taking the red pill.

And now we aren't. Federal law enforcement officers are not robots. They don't lose their humanity. Nor do soldiers or local cops. You take a job like that to PROTECT the constitution, not suppress it.

Oh! Which parts of the Constitution? Only the parts not in the Bill of Rights? Because I could have sworn that the 4th Amendment along with the 2nd is being swept away in this country every time a SWAT team busts into some poor schmuck's house with a pre-signed warrant.

Again, there are always exceptions. Bad people sometimes slip through. But given how difficult the screening and application process is, this isn't common. And this whole sale indictment of nearly a million of some of the best Americans is offensive and ignorant. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to get a job with the FBI, Secret Service, or any other federal law enforcement position? Or the nearly six months of intense training they also often require?

Show me where I indicted nearly a million people by talking about militarization. Talk about being misquoted.

Yes I do. I applied for the FBI several years ago and missed the cut because of color blindness. And I'm ex-military. By the way, what does the FBI and Secret Service and Fed law enforcement have to do with local police forces? You're straying away and using straw men again.

Again, how does this have anything to do with local law enforcement using flash bangs before entering a gang leaders home?

Gang leader? Oh, we're back to that straw man again? So you can guarantee me that SWAT never busts in on anybody but gang leaders? I've watched Dallas SWAT for crying out loud, they use the whole squad for routine drug busts where the guy had an ounce of coke or an illegal wheelgun. But what about the story I posted? You really believe that was a good use of tax dollars, mounting a SWAT operation for a guy in the shower and his wife in bed?

But what is your suggestion? Eliminating all law enforcement officers because they might function to enforce bad laws? Are you saying they should be so poorly armed and equipped that they will be easy to shoot if they attempt to enforce a bad law?

I hadn't made a suggestion, so where are you coming up with this stuff? Again, a ridiculous straw man, asserting that I'm advocating the abolishment of police forces. I've never said anything of the kind. This thread is about the MILITARIZATION of police. Please stay on topic.

Look, if what you're saying is that by not giving them APCs and fixed wing capability makes their jobs harder, then IT'S HARDER. But the problem we face today is that when the cops make mistakes with these expensive toys, it severely runs afoul of the 4th Amendment (and indubitably several others, such as the 14th). I'd rather their job be harder than my rights be violated. And if their job gets too risky, THAT'S WHAT THE MILITARY IS FOR.

Don't you think it'd be better ot work within the system to ELIMINATE those bad laws, not leave law enforcement so poorly prepared they are basically offered for sacrifice to actual criminals?

You're forcing me to choose between having an acceptable amount of civil rights violations versus a mass wipeout of police? Is crime really that bad?

Again, you offer up the straw man stating that without machine guns, APCs, and fixed wing, police will be slaughtered in droves. It's actually getting absurd. You're also repeating yourself.

Over eight hundred Thousand law enforcement officers.

Again, you're solution is what? Disarm law enforcement? I'm not building a straw man here, what's your point? Give them night sticks alone? You can kill a man with a night stick, so how about whiffle ball bats? What's your goal? Not only do you mistrust the government, the politicians, you're venting on the regular normal guy who choses a thankless, dangerous career, with the intention of just helping people.

What a fascinating statement. In the same breath that you deny constructing a straw man, you whip up three quick ones. You give me no room to answer the question. You're just firing rhetoric at me as though you really don't care what the answer is.

It's hard to answer your question when it's laced with SO MUCH ad hominem and invective. But I'll humor you, no doubt to be attacked again.

Simple. Give the cops guns and limit their jurisdiction to traffic violations and misdemeanors and felonies. Big targets must be targeted by the military. In fact, it would be even better to avoid calling in the guard. Just set up on-call militia groups - background checks and all is fine with me - to step up if necessary.

..do you have any evidence to back up that the law enforcement abuses are actually proportionately increasing? Noting that the population has grown, as have the numbers of law enforcement, are the stats really getting worse? I'd actually expect to see some increase given the increased likelihood of the public to report them and the litigious society we live in. But is that even the case?

Yes it is. 50 years ago police did not have APCs, fixed wing, and flash-bangs. 50 years ago this kind of thing didn't happen. But what difference does it make? So you're okay with violations of rights as long as it's proportionate? Ever heard the phrase, give em an inch and they take a mile?

You've been one of the strongest advocates of limiting the scope of government, but with military police you're okay with them being so powerful they can literally quash the public? Do you not even realize that if they wanted to institute a fully functional police state right now, there is little that would stop them at this point? It's happening in smaller increments, but it's happening.

What do you mean by public servants? I've stated that these are men and women who serve the community, that they dedicate themselves to a thankless job with the intention of helping out other people, people they probably don't even know. You seem to think that public servant means that they should be our whipping boys and victims. That they should be cannon fodder for scum bag criminals. And that they should be viewed suspiciously and as though they are our enemy.

Show me where I said that. And don't tell me what I think. You're grossly distorting what I'm saying into a phony template designed to discredit me. Your attack is baseless and without any facts to back it up, and you are using logically flawed euphemisms such as "whipping boys, cannon fodder, enemy, thankless, and sacrifice." Your argument is completely irrational.

Again, (sigh) I'm saying that they are GOING TOO FAR. I don't wish to disband police forces. Somebody's got to do the job. I'm saying that they are so powerful that they are getting fearsome to ORDINARY CITIZENS. I've already said this to you three times in this very post. I wonder if you'll ignore my statement yet again.

To the contrary, I think of law enforcement as an ally. To someone who is trying to improve the quality of the neighborhood. Someone I work with, not against.

Not arguing with that statement, despite your pejorative personal attacks to the contrary. Except for the military aspect!

Yes and I've never had a problem.
But, have you ever been in a line of work where it's very possible someone will shoot you in the chest because they've been pulled over for speeding and they have a pending arrest warrant.

Isn't that why they wear body armor, approach the car from the back and stop short of the car door, and ask people to put their hands where they can see them? LIKE YOU SAID, these aren't the Keystone Cops. They are competent. And AGAIN, do they really need APCs, machine guns, and fixed wing to apprehend speeders? You're mixing your metaphors YET AGAIN.

You have the public statement of one man.

Okay, if I can drum up a few dozen other statements by these political/law enforcement figures, will that prove to you that the problem is institutional? How many would it take?

The police chief is a political position. So you have now quotes the public statement from a politician. Every police officer I know encourages responsible adults to own and train with fire arms. All of them. But I'm not friends with that Police Chief.

Exactly. This is bordering on another subject, but should police be political figures? Isn't that a conflict of interest? Politicians make laws, police enforce them. What happens when the same guy does both? Do you not see the potential for corruption there?

By the way, I note that you omitted whether or not police officers encourage "responsible adults" (that's a talking point phrase) to CARRY firearms.

Of course not. However, I do get the distinct impression that story is either bullcrap or missing some crucial information. Regardless, if reality is as the story was presented, that was a horrible abuse of power,reckless abandoning of better judgment, and horrible allocation of resources.

Trying to mitigate my point by revising my story? It's false because you say it's false? You're using circular reasoning.

But, if posted a true story about the heroic deeds of a police officer, would that counter your single negative story? What if I matched every negative story you can find with three stories of bravery and nobility? What if I matched it with five? or ten? Would that prove something to you?

Aren't you generalizing here? How does a heroic officer prove that police should be SWATted up? This is again irrelevant to the topic.

What about the sixty police officers who died at the World Trade Center attempting to save people on 9/11? Or the police officers who routines dive into icy water to save children. Who form human chains to pull people out of rushing waters. The ones who throw themselves in harms way to protect innocents from enraged gunmen?

Irrelevant to the topic. Had nothing to do with militarization. Attempting to prove that police should be SWATted up because many of them did good things is a non sequitur.

You keep reminding us of the exceptions and you wholesale dismiss the quality and character of the vast majority of those people who dedicate their lives to public service. You denigrate them, you equate them to mind number, brainwashed, robots who simply lust for power.

This is not the case.

I've done nothing of the sort. You are putting words in my mouth in a defensive, lashing out, very liberal manner. It's actually irresponsible what you're saying, because you have zero evidence that I'm doing this.

Again, (hopefully for the last time) if the police were not so militarized, there would be less opportunity for abuses and more cause for investigation before the fact.

 

[fossten]

Comparing a 100 year old picture of a Chicago police officer to a photo of a U.S. Capitol Police is totally ridiculous and meaningless.

Earlier in this thread, I made a reference to the police officers being completely out armed by the bad guys at the turn of the century. Those same police officers in 1915 were completely ineffective when it came to preventing bank robberies and other violent crimes. Bad guys, like Bonnie and Clyde for example, simply purchased BAR automatic rifles.

Were we safer because the police were more poorly armed and defenseless against the criminals? Was it wrong to equip police departments with BAR rifles? Does giving the police radios result in them being a repressive force?

If dealing with a BAD cop of some kind, are you any less dead when beaten to death with a stick, shot by a .38 snub nose, or it's an MP5 round that finishes you off?

As I've stated repeatedly, the author misses the point by making the way the police look the issue of his article and not the policies they are mandated to enforce. Further, he is incorrect for saying that we should disarm law enforcement in order to make us safer. Personally, my hunch is that the author would really like to see ALL weapons banned, in both the hands of civilians and law enforcement.

You know, I really can't let you get away with this. Nowhere in this thread has ANYBODY advocated disarming law enforcement. You really are making false statements. It's a straw man at best, a lie at worst.

If you can't debate the issue in good faith, maybe you should pick your battles more carefully.

 

[Calabrio]

So you're denying that you called me bizarre and a conspiracy theorist?

Well, first, are you denying that you're claims are both bizarre and consistent with those of a conspiracy theorist? I did comment on you bizarre conspiratorial premises though. The notion that we are living in a police state and that law enforcement officers are brainwashed thugs hell bent on killing our kittens, hand cuffing naked white trash women in the shower, and putting responsible gun owning citizens in jail is a bit bizarre and conspiratorial though.

And now you are implying that I'm a socialist and an anarchist? Just throw everything you can think of against the wall, eh?

I implied no such thing. I simply stated two other "popular" believes that are also wrong to emphasize my point and demonstrate the absurdity of yours.

Again with your coarse rhetoric. Who are you calling loony? Examples, please.

I can't, because those are the people and the cultures I'm NOT familiar with. Stop looking for reasons to be offended. I'm not debating who YOU are but, initially the article you posted. Yet you see determined to make this about YOU. It's not.

Waco and Ruby Ridge were NOT figments of anybody's imagination.

No they were not. They were horribly managed tragedies. But the situation wasn't because the government and the officers involved were TOO well trained, TOO well equipped, or TOO well managed. Better trained, better equipped, with better direction (someone other than a corrupt Souther Florida Attorney names Janet Reno) would have SAVED lives. Incompetence, inadequate discipline, and bad policy contributed to the loss of life that day.

But for the record, four ATF agents died at WACO too.

It is NOT irrelevant; it is DIRECTLY related to the term "police state." You saying so doesn't make it irrelevant. What authority are you using to make this claim?

...I'm not debating the placement of cameras within cities. I have not stated any opinion on the manner, for or against them. And to go back to an earlier point, 7 out of 10 people seem to support them. Since you wanted to make an issue of how it was significant that more people than might be imagined agreed with you on this subject, I guess you'll consider the 71% of the public supporting the cameras as significant?

There are enough topics at play here right now that we don't have time, space, or the attention to include this sub-topic as well. And they have nothing to do with the police tactics and gear initially brought up in the first post.

Good gear and tactical efficiency? That's what you call it?

And I would continue to be correct by calling it that. Have you read the original article in a while?

There's your false straw man again. Either they have to be the Gestapo or the Keystone cops. No middle ground here with you.

How many pages do you need to define this "middle ground."

Interesting. The truth is that there should be jurisdictional limits on what law enforcement can and can't do, and that should include what kinds of crime they should target.

And there are. There are distinctions, there are FEDERAL CRIMES enforced by FEDERAL law enforcement.

Local police forces should NOT be MILITARY. That's what the MILITARY is for.

No, it is not the role of the military to enforce the law. It's also not what they are trained for. The military is trained to kill people. Police do everything in their power to bring people back alive and unharmed to stand trial.

If there is a crime problem that is out of their league, that is what the FBI or the MILITARY is for. Call them in. But don't cross the line from "protect and serve" to "dominate and destroy."

You're worried about militarization and a police state, yet you want the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT to handle police functions on a local level? More surprisingly, you want the MILITARY running around the streets enforcing street level laws??

How is that good?? That's the very definition of a police state.

You really, truly don't see the link between militarization of your "friendly, neighborhood beat cop" and the growing distrust and outright fear of them by the public?

And you don't see how idiotic your last statement was??

Putting your empty rhetoric aside, again, let me mention the example of Bonnie and Clyde. They had a huge fire power advantage over the police because Clyde took advantage of the weapons technology of the time and armed his gang with BAR rifles.

As you know, the Browning Automatic Rifle was a .30 caliper automatic rifle that had previously been used exclusively by the military.

Should local law enforcement called the U.S. Army to come capture this Gang? Was it overtly militaristic, marching us to a police state, when the police departments armed themselves with the BAR rifle and Thompson Submachine guns as well?

As cute as that picture Joey posted of the 1915 Chicago cop, it fails to depict the reality of the time. This is the same era where Bonnie and Clyde that died in their car when six officers ambushed them and opened fire on their car. These six guys had finally been given BAR rifles as well.

It's like taking the red pill.

Oh! Which parts of the Constitution? Only the parts not in the Bill of Rights? Because I could have sworn that the 4th Amendment along with the 2nd is being swept away in this country every time a SWAT team busts into some poor schmuck's house with a pre-signed warrant.

Again, your issue is with the police makers, not the officers enforcing said policy. But you've yet to explain how limiting them to a billy club and a .38, and denying them a bullet proof vest, benefits society.

Should we call in the army every time a drug dealer is in his home and it's suspected that he's well armed?

Show me where I indicted nearly a million people by talking about militarization. Talk about being misquoted.

No misquote. There are over 800,000 law enforcement officers in the country.

Yes I do. I applied for the FBI several years ago and missed the cut because of color blindness.

Are you, or were you, one of these mindless sheeple that want to be thoughtless pawns of the government, crushing the civil rights of the individual in order to expand the power of the state?

Or were you a good citizen who though you could help strengthen the country, preserve our freedoms, and improve the quality of life for people you don't even know.

I'm going to guess the later. So why do you project the exact opposite.

And I'm ex-military. By the way, what does the FBI and Secret Service and Fed law enforcement have to do with local police forces? You're straying away and using straw men again.

You expanded the discussion to include federal law enforcement repeatedly throughout the thread. Despite all of my repeated attempts to focus the discussion on the original post, you have gone off in all kinds of tangents expanding things.

How many times have you mentioned things like Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Ken Ballew for starters. These are all examples used to demonstrate abuses of power at the FEDERAL level, not the local. All the straying is coming from you.

My agenda has been plainly stated from the start. I want my local police officers well armed, equiped, and trained. And law enforcement officers are almost all good, noble, and honorably people who dedicate themselves to the public good. And they are not knowingly or blindly marching towards a police state.

Gang leader? Oh, we're back to that straw man again? So you can guarantee me that SWAT never busts in on anybody but gang leaders? I've watched Dallas SWAT for crying out loud, they use the whole squad for routine drug busts where the guy had an ounce of coke or an illegal wheelgun.

I haven't watched the show, I can't comment on anything you've seen on it.

But if they are sending a swat team to arrest a guy with ounce of coke sleeping at home, then clearly resources are being wasted. But how did they know he'd have "1 oz. of coke."

However, you're statement right now sounds like the strawman.

But in a situation where we're dealing with any other kind of felon, let's say he's a violent felon or a bank robber, would you rather guys in blue uniforms pull up in black and whites with the sirens on, knocking on the door armed with six shot revolvers?

Do you recognize that a powerful blitz SAVES lives. If you can control a situation before the suspect has time to recognize what's going on, you can bring them in without firing ANY shots.

But what about the story I posted? You really believe that was a good use of tax dollars, mounting a SWAT operation for a guy in the shower and his wife in bed?

You mean that story about the FEDERAL ATF abuse of power?

Well, they didn't arrest the guy because he was in the shower. Ballew is a tragic example. An example of inadequate resources, oversight, and training. Not of militaristic tactics, but of incompetence and a lack of professionalism.

I hadn't made a suggestion, so where are you coming up with this stuff? Again, a ridiculous straw man, asserting that I'm advocating the abolishment of police forces. I've never said anything of the kind. This thread is about the MILITARIZATION of police. Please stay on topic.

I'm well aware of the fact you've yet to make any suggestions. You're just ranting and rambling.

But clear up the confusion, state what your in support of. For the record, you're claim that the military should move in to function as a law enforcement agency is ridiculous, so perhaps we should pretend you never made that foolish statement.

Look, if what you're saying is that by not giving them APCs and fixed wing capability makes their jobs harder, then IT'S HARDER. But the problem we face today is that when the cops make mistakes with these expensive toys, it severely runs afoul of the 4th Amendment (and indubitably several others, such as the 14th). I'd rather their job be harder than my rights be violated. And if their job gets too risky, THAT'S WHAT THE MILITARY IS FOR.

You keep going back to this military angle, and it's just absurd. The military isn't there to enforce local or federal laws. And if you're fearing a police state or the true militarization of law enforcement, having the Army and Marine corps serving arrest warrants is outrageous.

I'm not familiar with the APC term, but I fail to see how having fixed wing air craft violates anything? And are helicopters o.k.?

Here's a strawman for you- are patrol cars o.k? When the state troopers have Mercury Marauders around here, is that going to far? Do they need 300hp sedans? Should they simply use horses? What's your point?

Do you think it's right for the rest of the world to see their gear advance as technology improves, but law enforcement should live in a static bubble? Was it wrong for the police to equip BAR rifles and Thompson submachine guns when they were being gunned down by criminals and mobsters?

Should we have used the military to prosecute the gangs in Chicago, or to chase the bank robbers of the midwest?

You're forcing me to choose between having an acceptable amount of civil rights violations versus a mass wipeout of police? Is crime really that bad?

Again, you offer up the straw man stating that without machine guns, APCs, and fixed wing, police will be slaughtered in droves. It's actually getting absurd. You're also repeating yourself.

The nature of your posts force me to repeat myself.

So are you ready to provide me an acceptable number of state and local law enforcement deaths annually? Last year, 146 were killed. This year, we saw over 100 killed within the first six months. That's with there fancy "militaristic" gear.

So, what's the thresh hold? 300? 500?

Do you remember the bank robbery in North Hollywood in 1997? I'll bring it up at the end of the post as to not repeat myself.

What a fascinating statement. In the same breath that you deny constructing a straw man, you whip up three quick ones. You give me no room to answer the question. You're just firing rhetoric at me as though you really don't care what the answer is.

Oh no, I was waiting for the answer, but using the absurd to demonstrate the absurdity of your position.

It's hard to answer your question when it's laced with SO MUCH ad hominem and invective.

No, I suspect it's difficult to answer because you either:
Don't have an answer or you recognize how foolish your answer really is.

But I'll humor you, no doubt to be attacked again.

Simple. Give the cops guns and limit their jurisdiction to traffic violations and misdemeanors and felonies. Big targets must be targeted by the military. In fact, it would be even better to avoid calling in the guard. Just set up on-call militia groups - background checks and all is fine with me - to step up if necessary.

..... o.k.
The police do arrest misdemeanors and felonies though.
And I fail to see how someone fearing a police state wants the MILITARY, the most powerful force in the world functioning under the direction of the executive branch and the commander in chief, on the streets, enforcing the law, and when necessary, employing lethal force against it's own citizens.

Have you really thought this one out yet?

Yes it is. 50 years ago police did not have APCs, fixed wing, and flash-bangs. 50 years ago this kind of thing didn't happen. But what difference does it make? So you're okay with violations of rights as long as it's proportionate? Ever heard the phrase, give em an inch and they take a mile?

You didn't answer the question, but that's o.k. I wasn't able to find any data on that either.

And no, I not in support of violation of rights. But I don't think the employ of flash bangs or airplanes constitutes such a thing. Again, I maintain, that effective use of technology (often developed for the military) SAVES lives.

You've been one of the strongest advocates of limiting the scope of government, but with military police you're okay with them being so powerful they can literally quash the public? Do you not even realize that if they wanted to institute a fully functional police state right now, there is little that would stop them at this point? It's happening in smaller increments, but it's happening.

And do you think the odds are better if we have the MILITARY enforcing the law?

And had you made it through the FBI hiring pipeline, would you be ready to quash the civil rights of public and support a fully functioning police state? No. You'd refuse, just like the vast majority of the other 1811 guys through out the country. As would the local police officers.

Show me where I said that. And don't tell me what I think. You're grossly distorting what I'm saying into a phony template designed to discredit me. Your attack is baseless and without any facts to back it up, and you are using logically flawed euphemisms such as "whipping boys, cannon fodder, enemy, thankless, and sacrifice." Your argument is completely irrational.

No, my argument is sound. Your argument calling in the federal government to enforce the law is irrational.

And my terms are correct. If you wish to disarm and unequip law enforcement, if you start talking in terms of acceptable losses, then you are essentially making them cannon fodder. A human shield, unable to defend themself, for society. Whipping boys- yes, they accept all the risk and in return, you liken them to jack booted thugs. That all sounds pretty thankless to me. And anyone who knows anything about law enforcement knows that a career in that line of work does require personal sacrifice, but you do it because you feel you're serving the greater good, improving society.

Again, (sigh) I'm saying that they are GOING TOO FAR. I don't wish to disband police forces. Somebody's got to do the job. I'm saying that they are so powerful that they are getting fearsome to ORDINARY CITIZENS.

Where is this fear? Why don't I share it? Why don't the people I know share it? What circles are you running with where this wide spread paranoia exists? I don't fear law enforcement. I view them as an ally. They are my neighbors. They are my friends. They are just like you and I.

And while they perform their duties, I want them to be as safe, as well equipped, and as well trained as possible.

Because the better these guys are trained and equipped, the better EVERYONE is. Well trained, well equipped police save lives. Busting into a house with a flash bang SAVES lives. If a suspect is apprehended so quickly, he doesn't even have time to grab his pants, let alone chamber a round, NO ONE gets hurt, everyone goes home that night.

What makes you think that the military, an institution trained to KILL, would be better or less prone to making mistakes than the local cops who know the area, know the suspects, and live in the community? And how big would the Army, stationed domestically in EVERYTOWN, have to be in order to fufill your outrageous premise?

I've already said this to you three times in this very post. I wonder if you'll ignore my statement yet again.

I've addressed every comment, every point, up until this point in the thread. You don't add anything new, so given the hour, I'm not going to bother taking it line by line.

Unfortunately, you've address virtually none of my points through out this thread. And when you get caught in a logic trap, you find some silly excuse for not engaging in it.

I suggest you re-read this thread from the beginning before posting again.



Earlier I mentioned the North Hollywood Shoot-out that took place in February of 1997. In case you don't remember, two men covered themselves completely in bullet proof armor with additional trauma plates to protect their vitals. They imported armor piercing bullets. They armed themselves with loaded three pistols, three fully automatic assault rifles, an HK91 rifle, an AR-15 rifle with 100-round Beta C-Mag magazine, and around 3,300 rounds of ammunition.

If you saw the Pacino/Deniro movie HEAT, you saw a situation that was inspired by this real life event.

These two armors and heavily armed guys robbed a Bank of America. The police arrived faster than these two anticipated. But unfortunately, the police officers fire power was limited to only their .38 service revolvers, some had 9mm Berettas, and a few had shot guns. None of these side arms had enough power to pierce the bank robbers armor though.

Within the first five minutes, 3 civilians and nine officers were shot by these two gunmen.

Eventually the SWAT team arrived, armed with automatic weapons. They commandeered an armored truck to rescue and recover the wounded throughout the area. Police officers went to a LOCAL GUN SHOP and borrowed automatic rifles from the store.

By the time the shooting was over, the bad guys were dead, but had fired over 1100 rounds.

Here's a video on the subject.
http://www.jokeroo.com/extremevideos/hollywoodshootout.html

How were we safer by having these police officers grossly unprepared and under equipped? How would the situation have improved were SWAT unable to arrive on the scene with their training and weaponry? Would things have been better if the police were forced to their police issue .38 and NOT gone to the gun store and borrowed the rifles, the same rifles available to the public?

 

[Calabrio]

You know, I really can't let you get away with this. Nowhere in this thread has ANYBODY advocated disarming law enforcement. You really are making false statements. It's a straw man at best, a lie at worst.

If you can't debate the issue in good faith, maybe you should pick your battles more carefully.

The BAR was a military rifle. If you are unable to debate the issue, perhaps you should tuck your tail between your legs and find a different topic to invest your time on, rather than continuing to make excuses why you don't need to address challenges.

Read the article you posted. Re-read what you have said. You specifically take issue both with the tactics employed by the law enforcement as well as the equipment they are now issued.

The BAR was a military rifle that was later utilized by criminals. This gave them a profound firepower advantage against law enforcement. Was it considered militarizing the police department when they were issued BAR rifles and Thompson submachine guns?

How is that any different than using flash bangs and M-16s now when the bad guys can easily arm themselves with bullet proof jackets, armor piercing bullets, and automatic rifles?

Here, let me quote YOU:

Just keep in mind that police forces both local and federal are given far more firepower than the citizens whose rights they are supposed to be upholding. All it takes is a corrupt cop or department and you have a police state. Also remember that we the citizens of this country are not allowed to use most of the equipment that our "public servants" get to play with.

Or how about the opening lines of the testimony you posted:

I’m here to talk about police militarization, a troubling trend that’s been on the rise in America’s police departments over the last 25 years.

Militarization is a broad term that refers to using military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments.

To say I'm not debating in good faith is absolute rubbish. I'm the only one doing so, addressing every argument while still remember what the original post involved.

And the fact that when backed into a corner, you answer that the solution to what you and Balko perceive as an increasingly militarized police force is to simply have the military serve in that capacity is remarkable.

You've been back pedaling throughout this entire thread.


Additional point- if you want to fear government power, you fear the strength of the military coming down on the populace. You fear military force being used to limit dissent. The local level is the community level. Those are our neighbors, the men and women who coach little league, attend meetings with you, go to church with you, and function in your community. Local law enforcement isn't the repressive force that will take away our liberties. This entire thing thread is ridiculous.

 

[fossten]

First of all, you're arguing by questioning - and your questions are largely rhetorical, therefore not grounded in good faith. You don't really expect answers to your multi-dozen questions, do you?

Second of all, you have not stopped the personal attacks.

Third, you have continued to misrepresent my words, even attempting to quote me and then draw elixir from my quotes that is in no way present.

Fourth, your arguments are absurd because you advocate the militarization of police while arguing vehemently against using the military. That is semantics, pure and simple. You would blur the line between the two rather than expand the usage of the latter. That is ridiculous.

Fifth, you harp on the isolated nature of police abuses, and then you use an isolated situation like Bonnie and Clyde or the North Hollywood shooting to back up your claims that we need to give the police overkill. That is a good example of the exception proving the rule.

Sixth, you have continued attribute to me euphemisms such as "disarm" and "unequip", when I've stated that my position does not in any way resemble such silly language.

Finally, you continue to ignore my statements, favoring your incorrect and pejorative mischaracterizations instead. That is not debating in good faith. As long as you continue to misquote, misrepresent, argue by rhetorical question, attack by ad hominem, and fail to state your position, I have no desire to continue this conversation with you. You have proven nothing, zippo, nada, zilch; you have not convinced a single soul on this forum that you are right about this, and it is largely due to your tactics.

I'm sure you will want to get the last word here, but I don't know what you think you will accomplish, as I will not be responding. So for all the times that you urged me to avoid blasting people and instead try to get them to agree by using reasonable tactics, you will have failed and ruined your own reputation.

 

[Calabrio]

First of all, you're arguing by questioning - and your questions are largely rhetorical, therefore not grounded in good faith. You don't really expect answers to your multi-dozen questions, do you?

Oh another excuse not to engage.....

Second of all, you have not stopped the personal attacks.

Another excuse. What a shock. But it's obvious I have not resorted to any "personal attacks" in this thread. And even if you're acutely sensitive, anything that you perceive as such hardly is the focus of what I've written or distracts from the broader point.


I disagree with the opening post. The author takes issue with the "militarization" of the police, and he defines it as the use of military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments.

But, unlike the author, who does recognize that SWAT teams, though being over utilized right now, serve an important role, you seem to think these activities should be handled by the ARMY!?

You state police forces should be no better armed than the average citizen, oblivious to the nature of crime and the fact that many criminals aren't stupid and understand how to arm themselves, and how it provides them an advantage to be better armed than the police. Logic would dictate that since the average civilian isn't going to increase their armories the police should disarm.

And since the definition of militarization as offered in the first post takes issue with the appearance and equipment of the police, how is that remedied? By eliminating those "militaristic" looking pieces of equipment?

This equates to disarming the local police.

Third, you have continued to misrepresent my words, even attempting to quote me and then draw elixir from my quotes that is in no way present.

So I'm misrepresenting your words, by using your words. Very clever. Perhaps I should use MY words to represent your words? No, you took issue with that too. So tell me, if I don't respond according to how I interpret your words, and I shouldn't quote your words, what are you trying to say. Have you had an insufficient amount of time space in this thread to express your points?

Have you considered using animation? Interpretive dance, perhaps. I'm sure we can find a way for you to express yourself in a way in a way that doesn't betray your thoughts?

Fourth, your arguments are absurd because you advocate the militarization of police while arguing vehemently against using the military. That is semantics, pure and simple. You would blur the line between the two rather than expand the usage of the latter. That is ridiculous.

You are advocating the use of military forces in order to enforce the law, yet you take issue with the fact local police officers might be fitted with an assault rifle? And I'm accused of blurring the lines?

Is law enforcement defined by the equipment it uses or the function it serves. Ignoring the philosophical contradiction necessary for you conclude that the military should function in a law enforcement capacity, you completely fail to recognize that the military lacks the resources, manpower, and training to effectively operate as peace officers throughout the country. What you're now a proponent of would call for an armed military presence in EVERY town through out the country. You don't simply blur the line between police and military, you would ELIMINATE it. It is madness.

Fifth, you harp on the isolated nature of police abuses, and then you use an isolated situation like Bonnie and Clyde or the North Hollywood shooting to back up your claims that we need to give the police overkill. That is a good example of the exception proving the rule.

Absolutely untrue, and it demonstrates your gross ignorance of history concerning law enforcement. The Bonnie and Clyde example was simply the first one I thought of. But the pattern of criminals utilizing weapon technology at a pace faster than law enforcement has been repeating through out history. Be it with winchester repeating rifles (a military weapon at one time), Thompson machine guns, bar rifles, or just cars with big V8 engines to evade pursuit, there has been a constant battle between criminals and law enforcement, usually with law enforcement slow to catch up.

And, true to form, while you find ample time to explain why you don't need to respond, you ignore your responsibility to explain what is an appropriate level of equipment police should carry. Should they carry nothing more than a billy club? Just a .38 revolver? You take issue with non-lethal weapons like tasers, so I guess those aren't o.k. Should they be limited to only revolvers, or are semi-automatics o.k.? Would a BAR rifle be o.k.? Could they carry old Tommy guns? What about an MP5? Can we have a small group of highly trained, tactically proficient officers to deal with the most dangerous situations?

Should we call in the army to dismantle bombs? To deal with hostage situations? Or to take down car theft rings?

Sixth, you have continued attribute to me euphemisms such as "disarm" and "unequip", when I've stated that my position does not in any way resemble such silly language.

It's called double speak. You contradict yourself repeatedly. You say you don't want to disarm them, yet you and your posts define the militarization of the police, in part, by the equipment they use.

Finally, you continue to ignore my statements, favoring your incorrect and pejorative mischaracterizations instead. That is not debating in good faith. As long as you continue to misquote, misrepresent, argue by rhetorical question, attack by ad hominem, and fail to state your position,

And another reason for you to NOT respond to any of the direct challenges made to you through out the series of posts.

I've recognized every statement and I have challenged or pointed out the abusrdity of such claims on each and every opportunity.

I have stated my position with the utmost clarity. Nor have I backed away from my position or demonstrated any inconsistency. The same can not be said for you. And getting you to post anything specific has been a chore much like pulling teeth with you.

I have no desire to continue this conversation with you. You have proven nothing, zippo, nada, zilch; you have not convinced a single soul on this forum that you are right about this, and it is largely due to your tactics.

You make this statement with your figurative back firmly against the wall standing in the corner with no more wiggle room. You've also realized that you can't dig your way out of your critical failures in reason.

I'm sure you will want to get the last word here, but I don't know what you think you will accomplish, as I will not be responding. So for all the times that you urged me to avoid blasting people and instead try to get them to agree by using reasonable tactics, you will have failed and ruined your own reputation.

If anyone has taken interest in this thread enough to follow it into page two, I'm confident no one will consider anything I've said or posted to fall into the same category as the behavior that I have been critical of in the past. I do not cry victim. I do not engage in personal attacks meant to dismiss my responsibility to respond to anyone. I address EVERY ridiculous point even when they were designed to distract. I do not personalize my arguments. And I have been consistent and on topic through out the thread.

Again, read the thread from the beginning, maybe then you'll be able to focus on your argument rather than just defending yourself from the corner you backed yourself into.

 

[ford nut]

Can anyone say beatdown ?

 

[JohnnyBz00LS]

Can anyone say beatdown ?

Hmmm, their avitars tell it all. Steve McQueen or pussy hiding behind a gun?

 

[formerknown]

Here's an LEO's perspective: sure, we have these "militarized" teams, we go through tactical training, and we have lots of different weapons. But those weapons and tactics will never be used. Why? One word: liability. I'll leave it at that.

I wouldn't bother to worry. The weapons possessed by law enforcement will collect dust in peace.

 

[fossten]

Here's an LEO's perspective: sure, we have these "militarized" teams, we go through tactical training, and we have lots of different weapons. But those weapons and tactics will never be used. Why? One word: liability. I'll leave it at that.

I wouldn't bother to worry. The weapons possessed by law enforcement will collect dust in peace.

Tell that to the Jews under Hitler, the Russians under Stalin, the Chinese under Mao, the Cambodians under Pol Pot, the Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh, the Japanese under militarist rule, and the Yugoslavians under Communist rule. That only accounts for the murder of over 128 MILLION people.

 

[Calabrio]

Tell that to the Jews under Hitler, the Russians under Stalin, the Chinese under Mao, the Cambodians under Pol Pot, the Vietnamese under Ho Chi Minh, the Japanese under militarist rule, and the Yugoslavians under Communist rule. That only accounts for the murder of over 128 MILLION people.

Totally irrelevant point. NO ONE in this thread has supported the confiscation of weapons, the revocation of the 2nd amendment, or the disarming of the population.

And mobilizing the military and increasing the role of the federal government and military in local law enforcement doesn't prevent the historic example you have just sited, it actually increases the potential of such a thing.

Rather than arguing that police should be less well equipped and trained, you'd be better served arguing that regular citizens should have less restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights, especially in "blue" states.-- something most of use would all agree on.

 

[Iszi]

Totally irrelevant point. NO ONE in this thread has supported the confiscation of weapons, the revocation of the 2nd amendment, or the disarming of the population.

Ah, but in many cases, being out-gunned is just as well as being un-armed.

Seriously, if you were to consider putting one fully equipped SWAT officer up against your average Joe American (remember, the particular scenario being referenced here is government vs. people, not cops vs. robbers) who *might* - but most likely doesn't even - own a single 9mm semi-automatic handgun, who would you expect to win?

Similarly, let's consider a SWAT team invasion of an innocent American's home, warranted on either false or mis-conveyed information. If I were behind a door where someone was suddenly pounding and shouting "Police", that person - who would subsequently bash the door in, since they have a "warrant" - would shortly be face-to-face with my own firearm, and a demand for proper identification. (I don't care what costume you're wearing, I want to see your badge and license.) Of course, they'd rather skip the introductions and take me down then and there since I probably don't have a chance of hitting an un-armored part of their body if I wanted to.

I don't remember if it was here, but didn't I see an article somewhere that described just such a scenario, in which an older lady was killed for trying to defend her home? I really don't care how many criminals are passed over because the police "aren't equipped or enabled to do their job". If that "equipment" or "enablement" results in just one innocent death by police hands, it's unacceptable.

I don't think anyone is really trying to argue that the police should be so under-equipped as not to be able to handle gang wars and such, but really the issue is that the standard of probable cause for a search warrant (and other operations) to be executed by a militarized police team needs to be raised dramatically, and the rules of engagement in such operations could definitely use a re-working as well.

 

[fossten]

Totally irrelevant point. NO ONE in this thread has supported the confiscation of weapons, the revocation of the 2nd amendment, or the disarming of the population.

And mobilizing the military and increasing the role of the federal government and military in local law enforcement doesn't prevent the historic example you have just sited, it actually increases the potential of such a thing.

Rather than arguing that police should be less well equipped and trained, you'd be better served arguing that regular citizens should have less restrictions on their 2nd amendment rights, especially in "blue" states.-- something most of use would all agree on.

More of your circular reasoning without authority. Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. I never mentioned the disarming of the population, you inferred that from my examples. Jumping to conclusions, are we? But that is very typical of you in this thread, putting words in my mouth and distorting the issue for your own silly purposes. Nevertheless, it is TOTALLY relevant to consider a militarized police force coupled with a disarmed public. We already have the first half of that equation in place now. What do you think Hillary or Obama will try to do if they are elected President? What do you think half the country's elected officials want to do to America? To say that can't happen here is naive at best, idiotic at worst.

The fact is that those countries had more in common than just disarming the populations - they were police states where the government was all-powerful and the police forces had military capability. The Gestapo/GRU type law enforcement was ordered by corrupt governments to murder civilians in droves. If you think that couldn't happen here, you're a fool and you've forgotten that in WACO and Ruby Ridge not ONE SINGLE federal agent was prosecuted or even fired for their crimes. In fact, several of them were promoted. That is an institutional problem and you cannot deny it.

And don't try deflecting the issue with your lame old "Oh, so you want the Keystone Kops to be walking around smacking people with wet noodles, then?" bull crap. You won't even be on the same planet with me. I'm simply identifying a problem and you REFUSE to acknowledge it; in fact, you are clearly in favor of increasing the conditions necessary for a police state. That means you are either on the wrong side or a mind-numbed fool. Rather than constantly attacking somebody else's viewpoint while failing to state your own, why don't you put your own ideas out there and tell everybody what kind of America you want to see? But we already know that, don't we:

Security rather than liberty, law and order rather than personal freedom, control rather than rights, and squashing of criminal activity even if the cost of that is a few mistaken arrests or dead innocents a week (or what you would call collateral damage).

 

[MERIJONS97LSC]

FOSSTEN AND CALABRO.....I think you guys are great! When ever I see anything about politics posted by either one of you I know I'm ready to hear a debate between the two of you. There funny and interesting. Sometimes even when one of you are wrong, you will not through in the towel. You would have a debate on " CAN A BLIND MAN DISCRIBE COLOR"
The only problem is that no one else can get a thought in!
Maybe you guys should have your own sticky..." THE FOSSTEN AND CALABRO SHOW!"
I hope you guys don't turn on me like in good fellas " YOU FIND ME AMUSING"? "I AMUSE YOU"?

 

[Calabrio]

More of your circular reasoning without authority. Just because you say it's irrelevant doesn't make it so. I never mentioned the disarming of the population, you inferred that from my examples. Jumping to conclusions, are we? But that is very typical of you in this thread, putting words in my mouth and distorting the issue for your own silly purposes.

Let's follow you're logic. You are saying that the infrence I made from you example was incorrect and the result of my "jumping to a conclussion." You say that my inference, that you were providing examples of societies that were victims of disarmament, was an example of putting words in your mouth for my own "silly purposes." I just want to clarify that before going any further...

Nevertheless, it is TOTALLY relevant to consider a militarized police force coupled with a disarmed public.

And then you go on to state the basis of my inference. The disarmament of the public.....

We already have the first half of that equation in place now. What do you think Hillary or Obama will try to do if they are elected President? What do you think half the country's elected officials want to do to America? To say that can't happen here is naive at best, idiotic at worst.

No we do not. We do not have a police state nor are we universally disarmed.

Gun control is not a popular issue in this country. Even the Democrats have distanced themselves from the issue. Need I remind you of the Presidential candidate John Kerry quote "Can I get me a hunting license here?"

You are right, we need to be vigilant in DEFENDING our constitutional rights. But that is not the same thing as disarming or denying training to the police department.

I am not threatened by the thought that my neighbor, who serves in the local police force, will be too proficient in his weapon, or too well equipped. In fact, even in step with your thinking, I would think it better to have that strength LOCALLY and not federal.

I do not view the local police force as mindless robots. I do not view them as pawns of the state. I do see them as a potential enemy. Where as you continue to present our relationship with local law enforcement as adversarial.

The fact is that those countries had more in common than just disarming the populations - they were police states where the government was all-powerful and the police forces had military capability. The Gestapo/GRU type law enforcement was ordered by corrupt governments to murder civilians in droves. If you think that couldn't happen here, you're a fool and you've forgotten that in WACO and Ruby Ridge not ONE SINGLE federal agent was prosecuted or even fired for their crimes. In fact, several of them were promoted. That is an institutional problem and you cannot deny it.

You say it's an institutional problem, yet you only can come up with two examples (federal ones, I might add) from over a decade ago.

I disagree, it is not an institutional problem.

And you premise of using military to function in a law enforcement capacity is the VERY situation you so fear.

And don't try deflecting the issue with your lame old "Oh, so you want the Keystone Kops to be walking around smacking people with wet noodles, then?" bull crap. You won't even be on the same planet with me. I'm simply identifying a problem and you REFUSE to acknowledge it; in fact, you are clearly in favor of increasing the conditions necessary for a police state.

To the contrary, it is you who would create the conditions necessary for a police state. After you propose eliminating the tactical efficiency of local law enforcement, you said that high risk situations should be assumed by the MILITARY! You specifically recommended using MILITARY force in order to enforce domestic laws!

I do not offer a solution, because I do not see a problem. I support law enforcement. The term militarization, as defined in this thread, is every bit as stupid as defining "assault rifles" dangerous because they look scary.

If you don't think I'm "on the same planet" with you, it might be because you're on some kind of delusional paranoid planet. One that I don't share with you.

I have repeatedly sighted historical examples. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you'd like to take back the ridiculous statements where you recommended turning over local law enforcement responsibilities to the military. But know that criminals have effectively been using technology and weapons technology to get an advantage over law enforcement since the beginning of time, how do you keep the peace without increasing law enforcement's access to equal force.

I'm not opposed to equipping law enforcement with whatever tools they need, they just need to be used responsibly. And I think they held accountable to use responsible use of force.

But I don't see how anyone thinks we are safer or "more free" by giving criminals a huge tactical and firepower advantage, leaving local police ill-equipped to combat crime, and differing all strength and responsibility to the federal government.

Again, a strong LOCAL police force is just that. LOCAL citizens who are STRONG. People you go to the store with, people who you go to church with, people who mow their yards on the weekend and wave.

That means you are either on the wrong side or a mind-numbed fool.

Or,of course, you could just be confused and over reacting again.... That's up to debate as well.

Rather than constantly attacking somebody else's viewpoint while failing to state your own, why don't you put your own ideas out there and tell everybody what kind of America you want to see? But we already know that, don't we:

Seriously, I've made myself abundantly clear for the past two pages and 40 posts. Do I need to clear it up for you again?

Security rather than liberty, law and order rather than personal freedom, control rather than rights, and squashing of criminal activity even if the cost of that is a few mistaken arrests or dead innocents a week (or what you would call collateral damage).

And, in contrast, you would appear to be in support of anarchy. Because if we live in an atmosphere where law enforcement officers are grossly out gunned by criminals, criminals hold the town hostage. I have given you a handful of examples, but you refuse to respond to them.

You avoid answering my questions. How well should local law enforcement (and since you keep including them, federal LEO) be armed and trained. You refuse to answer this. Batons? Tasers? Revolers? Semi-Autos? Shotguns?
Should they have access to M-16s or MP5s? Should they be allowed armor? Should a police force not ave a helicopter so that suspects can be tracked from the sky or so that car chases can be avoided? Does militarization include any weapon also used by the military? Is it better for the police to use 80 year old BAR rifles than an MP5?

What is it that you want? You're lack of realistic solutions is only overshadowed by your bizarre paranoia.

Here's the problem, you're dealing in misplaced fear. You're throwing around terms like militarization and police state, but the terms are nonsense. Everything isn't a slippery slope. And regardless what decisions are made, the public ALWAYS must remain vigilant when it comes to defending freedom and the creeping forces of tyranny. But that's not the issue here.

Police officers aren't hay bringers of totalitarianism. And you're distrust of the the local beat cop, as those he is really the fist of tyranny in disguise right now helping that old lady change a car tire on the side of the road, is really twisted and bizarre.

Or would you just like to make sure the police continue to be responsibly equipped and trained and simply lift the unreasonable restrictions placed on weapon ownership throughout too much of the country?

 

[fossten]

Let's follow you're logic. You are saying that the infrence I made from you example was incorrect and the result of my "jumping to a conclussion." You say that my inference, that you were providing examples of societies that were victims of disarmament, was an example of putting words in your mouth for my own "silly purposes." I just want to clarify that before going any further...
And then you go on to state the basis of my inference. The disarmament of the public.....

Yeah, that’s why I used the word “nevertheless.” Thank you Captain Obvious. So what?

No we do not. We do not have a police state nor are we universally disarmed.

We do have the beginnings of a police state. Just because you are the only person who doesn’t think so apart from the liberals in this country doesn’t mean jack.

Gun control is not a popular issue in this country. Even the Democrats have distanced themselves from the issue. Need I remind you of the Presidential candidate John Kerry quote "Can I get me a hunting license here?"

Excuse me??? So you are saying that we DON’T have twenty THOUSAND gun laws on the books right now? That we HAVEN’T already lost most of our gun freedoms? You obviously don’t even understand the meaning of gun control or the 2nd Amendment.

You are right, we need to be vigilant in DEFENDING our constitutional rights. But that is not the same thing as disarming or denying training to the police department.

Uh, don’t look now, but the entire Bill of Rights has already been breached. Sort of closing the barn door after the horse has left, eh?

I am not threatened by the thought that my neighbor, who serves in the local police force, will be too proficient in his weapon, or too well equipped. In fact, even in step with your thinking, I would think it better to have that strength LOCALLY and not federal.

That’s an anecdotal example with which you are attempting to prove and extrapolate the entire length and breadth of law enforcement nationwide. That’s a stretch even for you. How naïve you must be to assume that the police are incorruptible.

I do not view the local police force as mindless robots. I do not view them as pawns of the state. I do see them as a potential enemy. Where as you continue to present our relationship with local law enforcement as adversarial.

Government by its very nature is adversarial to citizens because it puts controls on them. When the government gets so powerful that the citizens can no longer overthrow it, that government is now the enemy of its citizens. Please tell me you aren't ignorant of the philosophy behind government.

You say it's an institutional problem, yet you only can come up with two examples (federal ones, I might add) from over a decade ago.

I can come up with dozens of examples if I need to. By the way, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Ballew is three, not two. Throw in Elian Gonzalez for number four. I guess if we follow your logic we should assume there are no police heroes since you haven’t come up with any examples, right?

I disagree, it is not an institutional problem.

And your evidence with which to back up this naïve statement is what? Because your neighbor is a cool guy to talk to when you guys are mowing lawns? Oh, man, you’ve really slammed me to the floor with that desperate riposte!

And you premise of using military to function in a law enforcement capacity is the VERY situation you so fear.

Maybe so. That is a problem. However, it is still no justification for your statement that the police should BECOME the military. It appears we are arguing opposite sides of the same coin.

To the contrary, it is you who would create the conditions necessary for a police state. After you propose eliminating the tactical efficiency of local law enforcement, you said that high risk situations should be assumed by the MILITARY! You specifically recommended using MILITARY force in order to enforce domestic laws!

Again, we ALREADY HAVE a police state in the making. The locals are just playing catch up right now.

I do not offer a solution, because I do not see a problem. I support law enforcement. The term militarization, as defined in this thread, is every bit as stupid as defining "assault rifles" dangerous because they look scary.

Ah, so police are completely incorruptible, then? You must be the most naïve person on the face of this country. Even cynical Democrats won’t agree with you on that one. If what you say is true, IAD wouldn’t be able to keep itself staffed. On the contrary, police corruption is a big problem and militarization is a bad combo. And sheeple like you are the reason they have been able to progress this far.

If you don't think I'm "on the same planet" with you, it might be because you're on some kind of delusional paranoid planet. One that I don't share with you.

And you’re a neophyte who doesn’t see the forest for the trees. Oh, well. It’s like the old saying, “you can lead a horse to water…”

I'm not opposed to equipping law enforcement with whatever tools they need, they just need to be used responsibly. And I think they held accountable to use responsible use of force.

“With whatever tools they need?” Okay, so if the police come out and say they need a weapon that makes people blind, would you be okay with that? Because they already have. What if they said they need biological or chemical weapons? Would you support that? What about nukes? Napalm? Fuel-air bombs? Car bombs? What about surveillance equipment? Are you in favor of pre-signed warrants and universal wiretaps? On one hand you say we don’t live in a police state, but on the other hand you support giving them “whatever tools they need.” That’s a sheer contradiction.

But I don't see how anyone thinks we are safer or "more free" by giving criminals a huge tactical and firepower advantage, leaving local police ill-equipped to combat crime, and differing all strength and responsibility to the federal government.

Your term “ill-equipped” is another flawed euphemism which doesn’t represent my position. A straw man. You’re repeating yourself with the same old lame rhetoric again. Baloney. I talk to LEOs almost every day, and they have repeatedly stated that the most dangerous situations for them are routine traffic stops and domestic disturbance calls. Not exactly fodder for the APCs and gunships. Bonnie/Clyde examples like you gave are decades old and not too common anymore. But neither is police investigation, is it? Nowadays, if they think you have half a joint in your mattress thanks to an anonymous tip, they just call in the SWAT team under the guise of making sure nobody gets hurt. Then when they get into the house, they can do whatever they want and the poor schmuck has to put his life back together. Meanwhile, the cops NEVER get sanctioned for their behavior. They get promoted. Hence the INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM.

Seriously, I've made myself abundantly clear for the past two pages and 40 posts. Do I need to clear it up for you again?

You have not done so. All you have done is waste all kinds of space with rhetorical questions and faulty reasoning as well as unfounded accusations. If you’d just state your point and then wait for my response, we’d actually have finished this conversation by now. But instead you insist on writing the great American novel and filling cyberspace with nonsensical questions and flawed logic.

And, in contrast, you would appear to be in support of anarchy. Because if we live in an atmosphere where law enforcement officers are grossly out gunned by criminals, criminals hold the town hostage. I have given you a handful of examples, but you refuse to respond to them.

To use your own statement, I would point out to you that those are very old examples that don't happen anymore.

You avoid answering my questions. How well should local law enforcement (and since you keep including them, federal LEO) be armed and trained. You refuse to answer this. Batons? Tasers? Revolers? Semi-Autos? Shotguns?

Should they have access to M-16s or MP5s? Should they be allowed armor? Should a police force not ave a helicopter so that suspects can be tracked from the sky or so that car chases can be avoided? Does militarization include any weapon also used by the military?

I don’t think police should be allowed to have APCs and gunships. I don’t believe they should be given presigned warrants that they can use to bust in on anyone they choose to. I believe the police should do more investigating and less breaking-and-fishing.

Is it better for the police to use 80 year old BAR rifles than an MP5?

You don’t know your weapons. I’d much rather use a BAR than a POS MP5. Jeez that was pathetic.

What is it that you want? You're lack of realistic solutions is only overshadowed by your bizarre paranoia.

And your staunch loyalty to your police buddies is overshadowed only by your gross naivete and blind trust in a supposed incorruptible law enforcement arm.

Here's the problem, you're dealing in misplaced fear. You're throwing around terms like militarization and police state, but the terms are nonsense. Everything isn't a slippery slope. And regardless what decisions are made, the public ALWAYS must remain vigilant when it comes to defending freedom and the creeping forces of tyranny. But that's not the issue here.

Wrong. When the government enacts ANY law, it is a slippery slope. You of all people should know that. Militarization hasn’t been a new, sudden thing. It’s a trend, and it has, since the old days of Bonnie and Clyde et al, steadily increased to the point where it can now threaten the freedoms of law abiding citizens. Need I remind you of New Orleans post Katrina again?

Police officers aren't hay bringers of totalitarianism. And you're distrust of the the local beat cop, as those he is really the fist of tyranny in disguise right now helping that old lady change a car tire on the side of the road, is really twisted and bizarre.

Your statement is false. I don’t distrust the local beat cop. I never said that. More of your pathetic attempts to construct straw men. What are you doing, wandering around in search of a thought?

I distrust the local beat cop’s access to special weapons that make him as unstoppable as the US Military.

Or would you just like to make sure the police continue to be responsibly equipped and trained and simply lift the unreasonable restrictions placed on weapon ownership throughout too much of the country?

What is that, an olive branch? So out of character for you. You know that your suggestion will never come to pass. Each year more and more gun rights are taken away despite your silly assertion to the contrary. Meanwhile, law enforcement becomes more and more like the military. I guess connecting the dots isn’t your strong suit.

 

[psungee]

.

 

[psungee]

I hope no one turns me in for occasionally having a small amount of weed. Hopefully my house never gets raided, and my family endangered.

Never put it in writing...

With that said, I think the point would be, the public is as important as the police and have the same right to safety and security as police (not more - not less). When, by police excess, an innocent individual dies, that is as criminal (or should be) as when an any police officer or other citizen suffers at the hand of a criminal.

 

[Calabrio]

We do have the beginnings of a police state. Just because you are the only person who doesn’t think so apart from the liberals in this country doesn’t mean jack.

Did this suddenly happen or can you tell us the moment or specific event that pushed over through thresh to this police state?

Give me some examples of how we are living in a police state. Are you worried that someone is going to report you to the government for disagreeing with police? Do those that make fun of the President find themselves thrown into Gulags?

Is this some kind of organized effort to repress us, and can you tell us who?
You're really exposing yourself to be on the lunatic fringe... it's not to late to embrace reason.

Excuse me??? So you are saying that we DON’T have twenty THOUSAND gun laws on the books right now? That we HAVEN’T already lost most of our gun freedoms? You obviously don’t even understand the meaning of gun control or the 2nd Amendment.

If you would like to have a discussion regarding whether or not it's constitutional for the government to issue any regulations on fire arms, feel free to do so. That isn't the subject of this thread.

Nor did I say that gun restricting legislation didn't exist. I made the factual statement that gun control is not a popular issue. To the contrary, increasing gun regulations and banning guns is an UNPOPULAR one. So much so that the Democrats, which had previously embraced the premise, are now silent on the issue. If this was not the case, you wouldn't see every Democrat Presidential candidate making sure he has regular photo-ops in the national media holding a fire arm.

So, regardless who is President, they will not be able to pass some broad, federal directive banning fire arms. There are other things they could do to interfere with gun ownership, but seeing as how we live in a representative Democracy, let's effectively debate against these candidates in a persuasive manner, one that does not cause the other side to defensively refuse to listen, and work to make sure these kinds of candidates aren't elected.

Uh, don’t look now, but the entire Bill of Rights has already been breached. Sort of closing the barn door after the horse has left, eh?

Your comment in no way resembles a comment to anything I said. In fact, it's irrational and foolish. The Bill of Rights shouldn't be breached, that's part of the "DEFENDING" it responsibility we have. This still remains independent of whether we have a police force with an armored car or not. You foolishly continue to link the two.

THE EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING IS NOT THE ISSUE. Police, law, government, or the military- any organization can violate the constitution regardless their gear. You've mentioned examples regarding two officers probably armed with .38s burst into a home. Should we make sure they don't have revolers now too?

Here's the reality. You're arguments and nonsensical, irrational, overly emotional, and paranoid.

That’s an anecdotal example with which you are attempting to prove and extrapolate the entire length and breadth of law enforcement nationwide. That’s a stretch even for you. How naïve you must be to assume that the police are incorruptible.

How pathetic and paranoid must you be to think that they all are corrupt.

Before I presume anything- let me ask. You would appear to be clearly inferring that he majority of police ARE corrupt. Is that what you are saying.

If not, why are we focusing on the rare, insignificant minority that may be susceptible to corruption, but would usually be caught and screened out by their honorable peers.

Government by its very nature is adversarial to citizens because it puts controls on them. When the government gets so powerful that the citizens can no longer overthrow it, that government is now the enemy of its citizens. Please tell me you aren't ignorant of the philosophy behind government.

I understand government. I've formally studied government. I've read the founding documents, the writing said documents were inspired by, and the arguments that took place at the time. I have a copy of the federalist papers next to the Anti-federalist papers on the shelf next to my computer. I can go on, but my point has been made. Do not even attempt to lecture me on these philosophies.

What you also fail to note, and it's the critical, paranoid under pinning of your arguments, is that the government in a republic like ours, is of and by the people. So you're adversarial position is not entirely accurate.

You continually state these issues in an us versus them format, as though that that American government is made up of some foreign entity with the intention to oppress.

That's not the case. And so long as we have a civic minded population, that won't happen. By design.

Government is composed of citizens. And the military, also, citizens who believe in the constitution. Law enforcement, citizens as well.

You're inability to humanize and personalize these people that you indict is the critical failure at the foundation of your argument. And why, at it's core, it's so unreasonable.

I can come up with dozens of examples if I need to. By the way, Ruby Ridge, Waco, and Ballew is three, not two.

Balley happened in 1971. That's about FOUR decades ago. So, you find two that happened ten years ago, and then go back another 25 years for your next example. And you think this demonstrates some kind of scary trend?

Why do you not have scores of recent examples that have taken place during the Bush administration and the increased powers entrusted to law enforcement?

Again, was Ballew any less offensive despite the fact such a small number of agents were involved and they were so poorly armed?

So is it the issue of the equipment or the people that use it? And how is Ballew even a militarization issue and not just a couple reckless cops in the 1970s.

Throw in Elian Gonzalez for number four. I guess if we follow your logic we should assume there are no police heroes since you haven’t come up with any examples, right?

Are you seriously going to bother bringing Gonzalez into this story? What is it an example of, how on Earth do you think that strengthens your argument? And international custody dispute that also involved kidnapping. Just another in the listed of isolated and extraordinary instances that you like to site thinking it makes a point.

I'll provide you a list of police heroes only if your going to state that you think that they are uncommon or don't exist. If we both agree that they exist and they are not the exception, if no challenge exists, then why would I invest the time to prove the point we agree on?

Are you telling me you don't think there are any police officers who act heroically?

And your evidence with which to back up this naïve statement is what? Because your neighbor is a cool guy to talk to when you guys are mowing lawns? Oh, man, you’ve really slammed me to the floor with that desperate riposte!

And while you can find three examples over the course of 40 years, you still intend to demonstrate that we have institutionalize problems?

I'm hardly naive, but you clearly are demonstrating yourself to be some kind of paranoid lunatic.

Are you trying to say that police officers don't live or participate in the community? Or can you not accept that reality because it is in stark contrast to your skewed us/them world view where all law enforcement are nameless, soulless jack booted thugs intent upon crushing your civil liberties.

Ah, so police are completely incorruptible, then? You must be the most naïve person on the face of this country. Even cynical Democrats won’t agree with you on that one. If what you say is true, IAD wouldn’t be able to keep itself staffed. On the contrary, police corruption is a big problem and militarization is a bad combo. And sheeple like you are the reason they have been able to progress this far.

The mere fact that an IAD division exists demonstrates the ability and desire of law enforcement to rid corruption from within its mists.

So, let's get this on the record, are you now also stating that the majority of people in law enforcement are corrupt and easily corruptible.

And you’re a neophyte who doesn’t see the forest for the trees. Oh, well. It’s like the old saying, “you can lead a horse to water…”

But apparently it's easy to get one like you to drink the crazy Kool-Aid.

“With whatever tools they need?” Okay, so if the police come out and say they need a weapon that makes people blind, would you be okay with that? Because they already have.

Are you talking about mace and pepper spray? Yeah, I think these are a valuable and useful means of employing non-lethal force to save the lives of both officers and civilians.

What if they said they need biological or chemical weapons? Would you support that? What about nukes? Napalm? Fuel-air bombs? Car bombs?

What need would law enforcement have for nukes, napalm, fuel-air bombs, or car bombs. These aren't law enforcement tools. They aren't designed for protection and they can not be used defensively. They serve no reasonable purpose. So no. This suggestion is clearly absurd.

If you know of some domestic law enforcement agencies requesting these weapons designed to murder, let me know. Then you'll have an argument.

What about surveillance equipment? Are you in favor of pre-signed warrants and universal wiretaps? On one hand you say we don’t live in a police state, but on the other hand you support giving them “whatever tools they need.” That’s a sheer contradiction.

Whatever tools they need was obviously in regards to equipment. Be it firearms, body armor, APC, helicopter, or flashbangs.

Pre-signed warrants and universal wiretaps mean that we have to discuss law, which gets more complicated than the very macro arguments I've been making. What do either of these things have to do with whether a cop should be able to wear armor or use a flash bang?

Your term “ill-equipped” is another flawed euphemism which doesn’t represent my position. A straw man. You’re repeating yourself with the same old lame rhetoric again.

If you'd provide direct and coherent responses to any of the challenges, I wouldn't need to repeat them.

I talk to LEOs almost every day, and they have repeatedly stated that the most dangerous situations for them are routine traffic stops and domestic disturbance calls. Not exactly fodder for the APCs and gunships.

You've stated an obvious point. Would you deny these police armor then?

And why is the routine traffic stop and domestic call the most dangerous. Because the officer has to enter a situation ill-prepared. He does not know the nature of the threat he's being presented. He does not have an element of surprise. And he can not, safely, neutralize, potential hostiles in order to sort things out. In short, he can't "militarize" things.

So you're solution is to make ALL situations just as dangerous as this.


You mention "gunships." I am not aware of any police force that use "gunships." If you know of some, or can provide a picture of this, I would be interested. When you say gunship, I envision a helicopter with mounted M-60s and rockets. Or I think of something like a AC-130 with cannons and machine guns sticking out of both sides.

Bonnie/Clyde examples like you gave are decades old and not too common anymore.

You're right. Bank robbers don't have the luxury of being able to out gun the police department, slaughtering LEOs and civilians without consequence, fleeing in a fast car. Why? Because law enforcement armed themselves accordingly, they eliminated that fire power advantage, and through technology like the radio, they eliminated the ability for the criminals to evade capture simply by driving a Ford V8.

But.... wait. That decades old example is awfully similar to the North Hollywood Shoot out I referred to earlier in the thread. Police couldn't stop two bad guys with armor piercing ammo, automatic rifles, and body armor were able to open fire on the streets. The problem was, police lacked body armor, and their handguns couldn't pierce the armor. It wasn't until SWAT showed up and police borrowed assault rifles from the local store, that these men were able to be stopped. And in a borrowed armored car, they went around a picked up the wounded.

So, it wasn't just a centuries old problem.

If police shouldn't be "militarized" as defined by their gear and training, how would you have liked the police to have resolved that problem?

But neither is police investigation, is it? Nowadays, if they think you have half a joint in your mattress thanks to an anonymous tip, they just call in the SWAT team under the guise of making sure nobody gets hurt.

That's a foolish statement. Certainly a ridiculous scenario. And if you can find some crazy isolated incident where that occurred, I will support you claim that it's an ridiculous abuse of power and misallocation of resources.

Then when they get into the house, they can do whatever they want and the poor schmuck has to put his life back together. Meanwhile, the cops NEVER get sanctioned for their behavior. They get promoted. Hence the INSTITUTIONAL PROBLEM.

If it's an institutional problem, there should be hundreds of examples. Given that there are 800,000 officers in this country. If the problem is institutional, you should have no problem finding, at least 8,000 examples within the past year or two. That's presuming only 10% of this institutional problem is involved and they are only responsible for one bad bust every other year.

You have not done so. All you have done is waste all kinds of space with rhetorical questions and faulty reasoning as well as unfounded accusations. If you’d just state your point and then wait for my response, we’d actually have finished this conversation by now. But instead you insist on writing the great American novel and filling cyberspace with nonsensical questions and flawed logic.

I've stated my point, I've demonstrated how wrong you are.
You have NO ARGUMENT here. You say these institutions are bad, then you point to a handful of examples over the course of 40 years. You say the institution is corrupt, but you have only these three dated examples.

I can point to historic events to demonstrate the consequence to a hypothetical action. However, you want to claim that a situation exists when there is no evidence to support such a claim.

How can we live in a police state if it's perfectly legal to go on a website and trash the government? How can it be a police state if you can spend your times in a radical mosque and coordinate ways to finance terror?

Again, you're premise is flawed. You logic is skewed. You paranoia is rampant. And your argument is non-existent. You simply avoid any direct challenges.

I don’t think police should be allowed to have APCs and gunships. I don’t believe they should be given presigned warrants that they can use to bust in on anyone they choose to. I believe the police should do more investigating and less breaking-and-fishing.

O.K. I'm not arguing that.

You don’t know your weapons. I’d much rather use a BAR than a POS MP5. Jeez that was pathetic.

I didn't ask you which you'd rather fire. I've asked you another specific question that you have again refused to answer.

You've taken issue with the militarization of the police. Law enforcement has had the BAR for nearly a century. I'm well aware of what a BAR is, as I am a MP5.

My point was, despite the consider power of the BAR, you're more concerned that the police might have an MP5 because it's "Militarization?" Does it matter that the BAR had previously been a military weapon? Should police not have it either? Was local law enforcement overtly militarized in the 30s too, and if it was, was it wrong for them to arm themselves with BARs and Tommy guns?

And your staunch loyalty to your police buddies is overshadowed only by your gross naivete and blind trust in a supposed incorruptible law enforcement arm.

And your paranoia is disturbing and misplaced. You're refusal to humanize these citizens who serve the community is disgusting.

Wrong. When the government enacts ANY law, it is a slippery slope. You of all people should know that. Militarization hasn’t been a new, sudden thing. It’s a trend, and it has, since the old days of Bonnie and Clyde et al, steadily increased to the point where it can now threaten the freedoms of law abiding citizens. Need I remind you of New Orleans post Katrina again?

So you are saying we're on a slow, 100+ year march towards a police state? Is this some kind of grand design put into effect by people who intend to turn over the country to their great-great grandchildren?

You mention Katrina, but I don't know what you think that proves? We should be alarmed by that. But that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with having a SWAT team or beat cops with kevlar vests.

You mention things that are troubling, but you lump them with things that aren't related. If the police have such freakishly overwhelming force, why the hell couldn't they control New Orleans? When the national guard came, why couldn't they control the city? You're paranoia is unfounded and inconsistent when applied to reality.

The decision to disarm regular people in New Orleans was wrong. However, from the anecdotal information I've received about Katrina, law certainly wasn't vigorously enforcing this rule. I've heard numerous stories of civilians and law enforcement SHARING ammo.

Because POLICE ARE PEOPLE. They are members of the community. They aren't nameless, mindless, tools of government repression. And to think so is an insult to the 800k men and women serving as LEOs and their families.

Some are bad, but the mere fact you know of ANY transgressions speaks of the ability to seek regress and investigate the situation. No institution is perfect. No person is perfect. But we do have oversight. We do have political processes. The IAD example you mentioned early doesn't demonstrate the evil nature of police, but the positive desires of other police to eliminate corruption and police themselves.

The mere fact that you think certain legal processes aren't being respected doesn't mean that you jeopardize or vilify law enforcement.

Your statement is false. I don’t distrust the local beat cop. I never said that. More of your pathetic attempts to construct straw men. What are you doing, wandering around in search of a thought?

You are dishonest. You make these inferences, then when challenged, you deny them.

You have demonstrated this distrust consistently throughout this thread. You can not back pedal from this.

I distrust the local beat cop’s access to special weapons that make him as unstoppable as the US Military.

What the hell is a "special weapon?" BAR, MP5, 9mm, pepper spray? Will you ever answer this question? I won't mention a billy club again because you seem to think that reference excuses you from answering the question.

What is that, an olive branch? So out of character for you. You know that your suggestion will never come to pass. Each year more and more gun rights are taken away despite your silly assertion to the contrary. Meanwhile, law enforcement becomes more and more like the military. I guess connecting the dots isn’t your strong suit.

Connecting dots seems like a game well suited for you. Maybe you can color in the picture with crayons when your done. Obviously logic and reason are beyond you though. There are no points left to address. You refuse to answer, honestly, any challenges that are presented to you, while I've certainly attempted to respond to every challenge you've posed.

You're weaselly, overly personal, rants really become tiresome. You are free to revel in your delusional, paranoia because we DO NOT LIVE in a police state.

Obviously, this thread is redundant. You've been given enough rope to hang yourself several times over by now and I tire of watching your death dance at the end of the metaphoric rope.

 

[fossten]

Did this suddenly happen or can you tell us the moment or specific event that pushed over through thresh to this police state?

What an utterly stupid statement. Of course it didn't happen overnight, only a total rube such as you would expect it to do something like that. The fact that you are now throwing up this straw man shows just how desperate you are.

Give me some examples of how we are living in a police state. Are you worried that someone is going to report you to the government for disagreeing with police? Do those that make fun of the President find themselves thrown into Gulags?

I will direct you to Republican Representative Ron Paul's speech to the Congress in 2002:

Congressman Ron Paul
U.S. House of Representatives
June 27, 2002



Is America a Police State?

Mr. Speaker:

Most Americans believe we live in dangerous times, and I must agree. Today I want to talk about how I see those dangers and what Congress ought to do about them.

Of course, the Monday-morning quarterbacks are now explaining, with political overtones, what we should have done to prevent the 9/11 tragedy. Unfortunately, in doing so, foreign policy changes are never considered.

I have, for more than two decades, been severely critical of our post-World War II foreign policy. I have perceived it to be not in our best interest and have believed that it presented a serious danger to our security.

For the record, in January of 2000 I stated the following on this floor:

Our commercial interests and foreign policy are no longer separate...as bad as it is that average Americans are forced to subsidize such a system, we additionally are placed in greater danger because of our arrogant policy of bombing nations that do not submit to our wishes. This generates hatred directed toward America ...and exposes us to a greater threat of terrorism, since this is the only vehicle our victims can use to retaliate against a powerful military state...the cost in terms of lost liberties and unnecessary exposure to terrorism is difficult to assess, but in time, it will become apparent to all of us that foreign interventionism is of no benefit to American citizens, but instead is a threat to our liberties.

Again, let me remind you I made these statements on the House floor in January 2000. Unfortunately, my greatest fears and warnings have been borne out.

I believe my concerns are as relevant today as they were then. We should move with caution in this post-9/11 period so we do not make our problems worse overseas while further undermining our liberties at home.

So far our post-9/11 policies have challenged the rule of law here at home, and our efforts against the al Qaeda have essentially come up empty-handed. The best we can tell now, instead of being in one place, the members of the al Qaeda are scattered around the world, with more of them in allied Pakistan than in Afghanistan. Our efforts to find our enemies have put the CIA in 80 different countries. The question that we must answer some day is whether we can catch enemies faster than we make new ones. So far it appears we are losing.

As evidence mounts that we have achieved little in reducing the terrorist threat, more diversionary tactics will be used. The big one will be to blame Saddam Hussein for everything and initiate a major war against Iraq, which will only generate even more hatred toward America from the Muslim world.

But, Mr. Speaker, my subject today is whether America is a police state. I'm sure the large majority of Americans would answer this in the negative. Most would associate military patrols, martial law and summary executions with a police state, something obviously not present in our everyday activities. However, those with knowledge of Ruby Ridge, Mount Carmel and other such incidents may have a different opinion.

The principal tool for sustaining a police state, even the most militant, is always economic control and punishment by denying disobedient citizens such things as jobs or places to live, and by levying fines and imprisonment. The military is more often used in the transition phase to a totalitarian state. Maintenance for long periods is usually accomplished through economic controls on commercial transactions, the use of all property, and political dissent. Peaceful control through these efforts can be achieved without storm troopers on our street corners.

Terror and fear are used to achieve complacency and obedience, especially when citizens are deluded into believing they are still a free people. The changes, they are assured, will be minimal, short-lived, and necessary, such as those that occur in times of a declared war. Under these conditions, most citizens believe that once the war is won, the restrictions on their liberties will be reversed. For the most part, however, after a declared war is over, the return to normalcy is never complete. In an undeclared war, without a precise enemy and therefore no precise ending, returning to normalcy can prove illusory.

We have just concluded a century of wars, declared and undeclared, while at the same time responding to public outcries for more economic equity. The question, as a result of these policies, is: "Are we already living in a police state?" If we are, what are we going to do about it? If we are not, we need to know if there's any danger that we're moving in that direction.

Most police states, surprisingly, come about through the democratic process with majority support. During a crisis, the rights of individuals and the minority are more easily trampled, which is more likely to condition a nation to become a police state than a military coup. Promised benefits initially seem to exceed the cost in dollars or lost freedom. When people face terrorism or great fear- from whatever source- the tendency to demand economic and physical security over liberty and self-reliance proves irresistible. The masses are easily led to believe that security and liberty are mutually exclusive, and demand for security far exceeds that for liberty.

Once it's discovered that the desire for both economic and physical security that prompted the sacrifice of liberty inevitably led to the loss of prosperity and no real safety, it's too late. Reversing the trend from authoritarian rule toward a freer society becomes very difficult, takes a long time, and entails much suffering. Although dissolution of the Soviet empire was relatively non-violent at the end, millions suffered from police suppression and economic deprivation in the decades prior to 1989.

But what about here in the United States? With respect to a police state, where are we and where are we going?



Let me make a few observations:

Our government already keeps close tabs on just about everything we do and requires official permission for nearly all of our activities.

One might take a look at our Capitol for any evidence of a police state. We see: barricades, metal detectors, police, military soldiers at times, dogs, ID badges required for every move, vehicles checked at airports and throughout the Capitol. The people are totally disarmed, except for the police and the criminals. But worse yet, surveillance cameras in Washington are everywhere to ensure our safety.

The terrorist attacks only provided the cover for the do-gooders who have been planning for a long time before last September to monitor us "for our own good." Cameras are used to spy on our drug habits, on our kids at school, on subway travelers, and on visitors to every government building or park. There's not much evidence of an open society in Washington, DC, yet most folks do not complain- anything goes if it's for government-provided safety and security.

If this huge amount of information and technology is placed in the hands of the government to catch the bad guys, one naturally asks, What's the big deal? But it should be a big deal, because it eliminates the enjoyment of privacy that a free society holds dear. The personal information of law-abiding citizens can be used for reasons other than safety- including political reasons. Like gun control, people control hurts law-abiding citizens much more than the law-breakers.

Social Security numbers are used to monitor our daily activities. The numbers are given at birth, and then are needed when we die and for everything in between. This allows government record keeping of monstrous proportions, and accommodates the thugs who would steal others' identities for criminal purposes. This invasion of privacy has been compounded by the technology now available to those in government who enjoy monitoring and directing the activities of others. Loss of personal privacy was a major problem long before 9/11.

Centralized control and regulations are required in a police state. Community and individual state regulations are not as threatening as the monolith of rules and regulations written by Congress and the federal bureaucracy. Law and order has been federalized in many ways and we are moving inexorably in that direction.

Almost all of our economic activities depend upon receiving the proper permits from the federal government. Transactions involving guns, food, medicine, smoking, drinking, hiring, firing, wages, politically correct speech, land use, fishing, hunting, buying a house, business mergers and acquisitions, selling stocks and bonds, and farming all require approval and strict regulation from our federal government. If this is not done properly and in a timely fashion, economic penalties and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

Because government pays for much of our health care, it's conveniently argued that any habits or risk-taking that could harm one's health are the prerogative of the federal government, and are to be regulated by explicit rules to keep medical-care costs down. This same argument is used to require helmets for riding motorcycles and bikes.

Not only do we need a license to drive, but we also need special belts, bags, buzzers, seats and environmentally dictated speed limits- or a policemen will be pulling us over to levy a fine, and he will be toting a gun for sure.

The states do exactly as they're told by the federal government, because they are threatened with the loss of tax dollars being returned to their state- dollars that should have never been sent to DC in the first place, let alone used to extort obedience to a powerful federal government.

Over 80,000 federal bureaucrats now carry guns to make us toe the line and to enforce the thousands of laws and tens of thousands of regulations that no one can possibly understand. We don't see the guns, but we all know they're there, and we all know we can't fight "City Hall," especially if it's "Uncle Sam."

All 18-year-old males must register to be ready for the next undeclared war. If they don't, men with guns will appear and enforce this congressional mandate. "Involuntary servitude" was banned by the 13th Amendment, but courts don't apply this prohibition to the servitude of draftees or those citizens required to follow the dictates of the IRS- especially the employers of the country, who serve as the federal government's chief tax collectors and information gatherers. Fear is the tool used to intimidate most Americans to comply to the tax code by making examples of celebrities. Leona Helmsley and Willie Nelson know how this process works.

Economic threats against business establishments are notorious. Rules and regulations from the EPA, the ADA, the SEC, the LRB, OSHA, etc. terrorize business owners into submission, and those charged accept their own guilt until they can prove themselves innocent. Of course, it turns out it's much more practical to admit guilt and pay the fine. This serves the interest of the authoritarians because it firmly establishes just who is in charge.

Information leaked from a government agency like the FDA can make or break a company within minutes. If information is leaked, even inadvertently, a company can be destroyed, and individuals involved in revealing government-monopolized information can be sent to prison. Even though economic crimes are serious offenses in the United States, violent crimes sometimes evoke more sympathy and fewer penalties. Just look at the O.J. Simpson case as an example.

Efforts to convict Bill Gates and others like him of an economic crime are astounding, considering his contribution to economic progress, while sources used to screen out terrorist elements from our midst are tragically useless. If business people are found guilty of even the suggestion of collusion in the marketplace, huge fines and even imprisonment are likely consequences.

Price fixing is impossible to achieve in a free market. Under today's laws, talking to, or consulting with, competitors can be easily construed as "price fixing" and involve a serious crime, even with proof that the so-called collusion never generated monopoly-controlled prices or was detrimental to consumers.

Lawfully circumventing taxes, even sales taxes, can lead to serious problems if a high-profile person can be made an example.

One of the most onerous controls placed on American citizens is the control of speech through politically correct legislation. Derogatory remarks or off-color jokes are justification for firings, demotions, and the destruction of political careers. The movement toward designating penalties based on the category to which victims belong, rather the nature of the crime itself, has the thought police patrolling the airways and byways. Establishing relative rights and special penalties for subjective motivation is a dangerous trend.

All our financial activities are subject to "legal" searches without warrants and without probable cause. Tax collection, drug usage, and possible terrorist activities "justify" the endless accumulation of information on all Americans.

Government control of medicine has prompted the establishment of the National Medical Data Bank. For efficiency reasons, it is said, the government keeps our medical records for our benefit. This, of course, is done with vague and useless promises that this information will always remain confidential- just like all the FBI information in the past!

Personal privacy, the sine qua non of liberty, no longer exists in the United States. Ruthless and abusive use of all this information accumulated by the government is yet to come. The Patriot Act has given unbelievable power to listen, read, and monitor all our transactions without a search warrant being issued after affirmation of probably cause. "Sneak and peak" and blanket searches are now becoming more frequent every day. What have we allowed to happen to the 4th amendment?

It may be true that the average American does not feel intimidated by the encroachment of the police state. I'm sure our citizens are more tolerant of what they see as mere nuisances because they have been deluded into believing all this government supervision is necessary and helpful- and besides they are living quite comfortably, material wise. However the reaction will be different once all this new legislation we're passing comes into full force, and the material comforts that soften our concerns for government regulations are decreased. This attitude then will change dramatically, but the trend toward the authoritarian state will be difficult to reverse.

What government gives with one hand- as it attempts to provide safety and security- it must, at the same time, take away with two others. When the majority recognizes that the monetary cost and the results of our war against terrorism and personal freedoms are a lot less than promised, it may be too late.

I'm sure all my concerns are unconvincing to the vast majority of Americans, who not only are seeking but also are demanding they be made safe from any possible attack from anybody, ever. I grant you this is a reasonable request.

The point is, however, there may be a much better way of doing it. We must remember, we don't sit around and worry that some Canadian citizen is about to walk into New York City and set off a nuclear weapon. We must come to understand the real reason is that there's a difference between the Canadians and all our many friends and the Islamic radicals. And believe me, we're not the target because we're "free and prosperous".

The argument made for more government controls here at home and expansionism overseas to combat terrorism is simple and goes like this: "If we're not made safe from potential terrorists, property and freedom have no meaning." It is argued that first we must have life and physical and economic security, with continued abundance, then we'll talk about freedom.

It reminds me of the time I was soliciting political support from a voter and was boldly put down: "Ron," she said, "I wish you would lay off this freedom stuff; it's all nonsense. We're looking for a Representative who will know how to bring home the bacon and help our area, and you're not that person." Believe me, I understand that argument; it's just that I don't agree that is what should be motivating us here in the Congress.

That's not the way it works. Freedom does not preclude security. Making security the highest priority can deny prosperity and still fail to provide the safety we all want.

The Congress would never agree that we are a police state. Most members, I'm sure, would argue otherwise. But we are all obligated to decide in which direction we are going. If we're moving toward a system that enhances individual liberty and justice for all, my concerns about a police state should be reduced or totally ignored. Yet, if, by chance, we're moving toward more authoritarian control than is good for us, and moving toward a major war of which we should have no part, we should not ignore the dangers. If current policies are permitting a serious challenge to our institutions that allow for our great abundance, we ignore them at great risk for future generations.

That's why the post-9/11 analysis and subsequent legislation are crucial to the survival of those institutions that made America great. We now are considering a major legislative proposal dealing with this dilemma- the new Department of Homeland Security- and we must decide if it truly serves the interests of America.

Since the new department is now a forgone conclusion, why should anyone bother to record a dissent? Because it's the responsibility of all of us to speak the truth to our best ability, and if there are reservations about what we're doing, we should sound an alarm and warn the people of what is to come.

In times of crisis, nearly unanimous support for government programs is usual and the effects are instantaneous. Discovering the error of our ways and waiting to see the unintended consequences evolve takes time and careful analysis. Reversing the bad effects is slow and tedious and fraught with danger. People would much prefer to hear platitudes than the pessimism of a flawed policy.

Understanding the real reason why we were attacked is crucial to crafting a proper response. I know of no one who does not condemn the attacks of 9/11. Disagreement as to the cause and the proper course of action should be legitimate in a free society such as ours. If not, we're not a free society.

Not only do I condemn the vicious acts of 9/11, but also, out of deep philosophic and moral commitment, I have pledged never to use any form of aggression to bring about social or economic changes.

But I am deeply concerned about what has been done and what we are yet to do in the name of security against the threat of terrorism.

Political propagandizing is used to get all of us to toe the line and be good "patriots," supporting every measure suggested by the administration. We are told that preemptive strikes, torture, military tribunals, suspension of habeas corpus, executive orders to wage war, and sacrificing privacy with a weakened 4th Amendment are the minimum required to save our country from the threat of terrorism.

Who's winning this war anyway?

To get popular support for these serious violations of our traditional rule of law requires that people be kept in a state of fear. The episode of spreading undue concern about the possibility of a dirty bomb being exploded in Washington without any substantiation of an actual threat is a good example of excessive fear being generated by government officials.

To add insult to injury, when he made this outlandish announcement, our Attorney General was in Moscow. Maybe if our FBI spent more time at home, we would get more for the money we pump into this now- discredited organization. Our FBI should be gathering information here at home, and the thousands of agents overseas should return. We don't need these agents competing overseas and confusing the intelligence apparatus of the CIA or the military.

I'm concerned that the excess fear, created by the several hundred al Qaeda functionaries willing to sacrifice their lives for their demented goals, is driving us to do to ourselves what the al Qaeda themselves could never do to us by force.

So far the direction is clear: we are legislating bigger and more intrusive government here at home and are allowing our President to pursue much more military adventurism abroad. These pursuits are overwhelmingly supported by Members of Congress, the media, and the so-called intellectual community, and questioned only by a small number of civil libertarians and anti-imperial, anti-war advocates.

The main reason why so many usually levelheaded critics of bad policy accept this massive increase in government power is clear. They, for various reasons, believe the official explanation of "Why us?" The several hundred al Qaeda members, we were told, hate us because: "We're rich, we're free, we enjoy materialism, and the purveyors of terror are jealous and envious, creating the hatred that drives their cause. They despise our Christian-Judaic values and this, is the sole reason why they are willing to die for their cause." For this to be believed, one must also be convinced that the perpetrators lied to the world about why they attacked us.

The al Qaeda leaders say they hate us because:

-We support Western puppet regimes in Arab countries for commercial reasons and against the wishes of the populace of these countries.

-This partnership allows a military occupation, the most confrontational being in Saudi Arabia, that offends their sense of pride and violates their religious convictions by having a foreign military power on their holy land. We refuse to consider how we might feel if China's navy occupied the Gulf of Mexico for the purpose of protecting "their oil" and had air bases on U.S. territory.

-We show extreme bias in support of one side in the fifty-plus-year war going on in the Middle East.

What if the al Qaeda is telling the truth and we ignore it? If we believe only the official line from the administration and proceed to change our whole system and undermine our constitutional rights, we may one day wake up to find that the attacks have increased, the numbers of those willing to commit suicide for their cause have grown, our freedoms are diminished, and all this has contributed to making our economic problems worse. The dollar cost of this "war" could turn out to be exorbitant, and the efficiency of our markets can be undermined by the compromises placed on our liberties.

Sometimes it almost seems that our policies inadvertently are actually based on a desire to make ourselves "less free and less prosperous"- those conditions that are supposed to have prompted the attacks. I'm convinced we must pay more attention to the real cause of the attacks of last year and challenge the explanations given us.



The question that one day must be answered is this:

What if we had never placed our troops in Saudi Arabia and had involved ourselves in the Middle East war in an even-handed fashion. Would it have been worth it if this would have prevented the events of 9/11?

If we avoid the truth, we will be far less well off than if we recognize that just maybe there is some truth in the statements made by the leaders of those who perpetrated the atrocities. If they speak the truth about the real cause, changing our foreign policy from foreign military interventionism around the globe supporting an American empire would make a lot of sense. It could reduce tensions, save money, preserve liberty and preserve our economic system.

This, for me, is not a reactive position coming out of 9/11, but rather is an argument I've made for decades, claiming that meddling in the affairs of others is dangerous to our security and actually reduces our ability to defend ourselves.

This in no way precludes pursuing those directly responsible for the attacks and dealing with them accordingly- something that we seem to have not yet done. We hear more talk of starting a war in Iraq than in achieving victory against the international outlaws that instigated the attacks on 9/11. Rather than pursuing war against countries that were not directly responsible for the attacks, we should consider the judicious use of Marque and Reprisal.

I'm sure that a more enlightened approach to our foreign policy will prove elusive. Financial interests of our international corporations, oil companies, and banks, along with the military-industrial complex, are sure to remain a deciding influence on our policies.

Besides, even if my assessments prove to be true, any shift away from foreign militarism- like bringing our troops home- would now be construed as yielding to the terrorists. It just won't happen. This is a powerful point and the concern that we might appear to be capitulating is legitimate.

Yet how long should we deny the truth, especially if this denial only makes us more vulnerable? Shouldn't we demand the courage and wisdom of our leaders to do the right thing, in spite of the political shortcomings?

President Kennedy faced an even greater threat in October 1962, and from a much more powerful force. The Soviet/Cuban terrorist threat with nuclear missiles only 90 miles off our shores was wisely defused by Kennedy's capitulating and removing missiles from Turkey on the Soviet border. Kennedy deserved the praise he received for the way he handled the nuclear standoff with the Soviets. This concession most likely prevented a nuclear exchange and proved that taking a step back from a failed policy is beneficial, yet how one does so is crucial. The answer is to do it diplomatically- that's what diplomats are supposed to do.

Maybe there is no real desire to remove the excuse for our worldwide imperialism, especially our current new expansion into central Asia or the domestic violations of our civil liberties. Today's conditions may well be exactly what our world commercial interests want. It's now easy for us to go into the Philippines, Columbia, Pakistan, Afghanistan, or wherever in pursuit of terrorists. No questions are asked by the media or the politicians- only cheers. Put in these terms, who can object? We all despise the tactics of the terrorists, so the nature of the response is not to be questioned!

A growing number of Americans are concluding that the threat we now face comes more as a consequence of our foreign policy than because the bad guys envy our freedoms and prosperity. How many terrorist attacks have been directed toward Switzerland, Australia, Canada, or Sweden? They too are rich and free, and would be easy targets, but the Islamic fundamentalists see no purpose in doing so.

There's no purpose in targeting us unless there's a political agenda, which there surely is. To deny that this political agenda exists jeopardizes the security of this country. Pretending something to be true that is not is dangerous.

It's a definite benefit for so many to recognize that our $40 billion annual investment in intelligence gathering prior to 9/11 was a failure. Now a sincere desire exists to rectify these mistakes. That's good, unless, instead of changing the role for the CIA and the FBI, all the past mistakes are made worse by spending more money and enlarging the bureaucracies to do the very same thing without improving their efficiency or changing their goals. Unfortunately that is what is likely to happen.

One of the major shortcomings that led to the 9/11 tragedies was that the responsibility for protecting commercial airlines was left to the government, the FAA, the FBI, the CIA, and the INS. And they failed. A greater sense of responsibility for the owners to provide security is what was needed. Guns in the cockpit would have most likely prevented most of the deaths that occurred on that fateful day.

But what does our government do? It firmly denies airline pilots the right to defend their planes, and we federalize the security screeners and rely on F16s to shoot down airliners if they are hijacked.

Security screeners, many barely able to speak English, spend endless hours harassing pilots, confiscating dangerous mustache scissors, mauling grandmothers and children, and pestering Al Gore, while doing nothing about the influx of aliens from Middle-Eastern countries who are on designated watch lists.

We pump up the military in India and Pakistan, ignore all the warnings about Saudi Arabia, and plan a secret war against Iraq to make sure no one starts asking where Osama bin Laden is. We think we know where Saddam Hussein lives, so let's go get him instead.

Since our government bureaucracy failed, why not get rid of it instead of adding to it? If we had proper respect and understood how private property owners effectively defend themselves, we could apply those rules to the airlines and achieve something worthwhile.

If our immigration policies have failed us, when will we defy the politically correct fanatics and curtail the immigration of those individuals on the highly suspect lists? Instead of these changes, all we hear is that the major solution will come by establishing a huge new federal department- the Department of Homeland Security.

According to all the pundits, we are expected to champion this big-government approach, and if we don't jolly well like it, we will be tagged "unpatriotic." The fear that permeates our country cries out for something to be done in response to almost daily warnings of the next attack. If it's not a real attack, then it's a theoretical one; one where the bomb could well be only in the mind of a potential terrorist.

Where is all this leading us? Are we moving toward a safer and more secure society? I think not. All the discussions of these proposed plans since 9/11 have been designed to condition the American people to accept major changes in our political system. Some of the changes being made are unnecessary, and others are outright dangerous to our way of life.

There is no need for us to be forced to choose between security and freedom. Giving up freedom does not provide greater security. Preserving and better understanding freedom can. Sadly today, many are anxious to give up freedom in response to real and generated fears..

The plans for a first strike supposedly against a potential foreign government should alarm all Americans. If we do not resist this power the President is assuming, our President, through executive order, can start a war anyplace, anytime, against anyone he chooses, for any reason, without congressional approval. This is a tragic usurpation of the war power by the executive branch from the legislative branch, with Congress being all too accommodating.

Removing the power of the executive branch to wage war, as was done through our revolution and the writing of the Constitution, is now being casually sacrificed on the altar of security. In a free society, and certainly in the constitutional republic we have been given, it should never be assumed that the President alone can take it upon himself to wage war whenever he pleases.

The publicly announced plan to murder Saddam Hussein in the name of our national security draws nary a whimper from Congress. Support is overwhelming, without a thought as to its legality, morality, constitutionality, or its practicality. Murdering Saddam Hussein will surely generate many more fanatics ready to commit their lives to suicide terrorist attacks against us.

Our CIA attempt to assassinate Castro backfired with the subsequent assassination of our president. Killing Saddam Hussein, just for the sake of killing him, obviously will increase the threat against us, not diminish it. It makes no sense. But our warriors argue that someday he may build a bomb, someday he might use it, maybe against us or some yet-unknown target. This policy further radicalizes the Islamic fundamentalists against us, because from their viewpoint, our policy is driven by Israeli, not U.S. security interests.

Planned assassination, a preemptive strike policy without proof of any threat, and a vague definition of terrorism may work for us as long as we're king of the hill, but one must assume every other nation will naturally use our definition of policy as justification for dealing with their neighbors. India can justify a first strike against Pakistan, China against India or Taiwan, as well as many other such examples. This new policy, if carried through, will make the world much less safe.

This new doctrine is based on proving a negative, which is impossible to do, especially when we're dealing with a subjective interpretation of plans buried in someone's head. To those who suggest a more restrained approach on Iraq and killing Saddam Hussein, the war hawks retort, saying: "Prove to me that Saddam Hussein might not do something someday directly harmful to the United States." Since no one can prove this, the warmongers shout: "Let's march on Baghdad."

We all can agree that aggression should be met with force and that providing national security is an ominous responsibility that falls on Congress' shoulders. But avoiding useless and unjustifiable wars that threaten our whole system of government and security seems to be the more prudent thing to do.

Since September 11th, Congress has responded with a massive barrage of legislation not seen since Roosevelt took over in 1933. Where Roosevelt dealt with trying to provide economic security, today's legislation deals with personal security from any and all imaginable threats, at any cost- dollar or freedom-wise. These efforts include:

-The Patriot Act, which undermines the 4th Amendment with the establishment of an overly broad and dangerous definition of terrorism.

- The Financial Anti-Terrorism Act, which expands the government's surveillance of the financial transactions of all American citizens through increased power to FinCen and puts back on track the plans to impose "Know Your Customer" rules on all Americans, which had been sought after for years.

-The airline bailout bill gave $15 billion, rushed through shortly after 9/11.

- The federalization of all airline security employees.

-Military tribunals set up by executive order-undermining the rights of those accused- rights established as far back in history as 1215.

- Unlimited retention of suspects without charges being made, even when a crime has not been committed- a serious precedent that one day may well be abused.

- Relaxation of FBI surveillance guidelines of all political activity.

- Essentially monopolizing vaccines and treatment for infectious diseases, permitting massive quarantines and mandates for vaccinations.

Almost all significant legislation since 9/11 has been rushed through in a tone of urgency with reference to the tragedy, including the $190 billion farm bill as well as fast track.

Guarantees to all insurance companies now are moving quickly through the Congress.
Increasing the billions already flowing into foreign aid is now being planned as our interventions overseas continue to grow and expand.

There's no reason to believe that the massive increase in spending, both domestic and foreign, along with the massive expansion of the size of the federal government, will slow any time soon. The deficit is exploding as the economy weakens. When the government sector drains the resources needed for capital expansion, it contributes to the loss of confidence needed for growth.

Even without evidence that any good has come from this massive expansion of government power, Congress is in the process of establishing a huge new bureaucracy, the Department of Homeland Security, hoping miraculously through centralization to make all these efforts productive and worthwhile.

There is no evidence, however, that government bureaucracy and huge funding can solve our nation's problems. The likelihood is that the unintended consequences of this new proposal will diminish our freedoms and do nothing to enhance our security.

Opposing currently proposed and recently passed legislation does not mean one is complacent about terrorism or homeland security. The truth is that there are alternative solutions to these problems we face, without resorting to expanding the size and scope of government at the expense of liberty.

As tempting as it may seem, a government is incapable of preventing crimes. On occasion, with luck it might succeed. But the failure to tip us off about 9/11, after spending $40 billion annually on intelligence gathering, should have surprised no one. Governments, by nature, are very inefficient institutions. We must accept this as fact.

I'm sure that our intelligence agencies had the information available to head off 9/11, but bureaucratic blundering and turf wars prevented the information from being useful. But, the basic principle is wrong. City policeman can't and should not be expected to try to preempt crimes. That would invite massive intrusions into the everyday activities of every law-abiding citizen.

But that's exactly what our recent legislation is doing. It's a wrong-headed goal, no matter how wonderful it may sound. The policemen in the inner cities patrol their beats, but crime is still rampant. In the rural areas of America, literally millions of our citizens are safe and secure in their homes, though miles from any police protection. They are safe because even the advantage of isolation doesn't entice the burglar to rob a house when he knows a shotgun sits inside the door waiting to be used. But this is a right denied many of our citizens living in the inner cities.

The whole idea of government preventing crime is dangerous. To prevent crimes in our homes or businesses, government would need cameras to spy on our every move; to check for illegal drug use, wife beating, child abuse, or tax evasion. They would need cameras, not only on our streets and in our homes, but our phones, internet, and travels would need to be constantly monitored- just to make sure we are not a terrorist, drug dealer, or tax evader.

This is the assumption now used at our airports, rather than allowing privately owned airlines to profile their passengers to assure the safety for which the airline owners ought to assume responsibility. But, of course, this would mean guns in the cockpit. I am certain that this approach to safety and security would be far superior to the rules that existed prior to 9/11 and now have been made much worse in the past nine months.

This method of providing security emphasizes private-property ownership and responsibility of the owners to protect that property. But the right to bear arms must also be included. The fact that the administration is opposed to guns in the cockpit and the fact that the airline owners are more interested in bailouts and insurance protection mean that we're just digging a bigger hole for ourselves- ignoring liberty and expecting the government to provide something it's not capable of doing.

Because of this, in combination with a foreign policy that generates more hatred toward us and multiplies the number of terrorists that seek vengeance, I am deeply concerned that Washington's efforts so far sadly have only made us more vulnerable. I'm convinced that the newly proposed Department of Homeland Security will do nothing to make us more secure, but it will make us all a lot poorer and less free. If the trend continues, the Department of Homeland Security may well be the vehicle used for a much more ruthless control of the people by some future administration than any of us dreams. Let's pray that this concern will never materialize.

America is not now a ruthless authoritarian police state. But our concerns ought to be whether we have laid the foundation of a more docile police state. The love of liberty has been so diminished that we tolerate intrusions into our privacies today that would have been abhorred just a few years ago. Tolerance of inconvenience to our liberties is not uncommon when both personal and economic fear persists. The sacrifices being made to our liberties will surely usher in a system of government that will please only those who enjoy being in charge of running other people's lives.

Mr. Speaker, what, then, is the answer to the question: "Is America a Police State?" My answer is: "Maybe not yet, but it is fast approaching." The seeds have been sown and many of our basic protections against tyranny have been and are constantly being undermined. The post-9/11 atmosphere here in Congress has provided ample excuse to concentrate on safety at the expense of liberty, failing to recognize that we cannot have one without the other.

When the government keeps detailed records on every move we make and we either need advance permission for everything we do or are penalized for not knowing what the rules are, America will be declared a police state. Personal privacy for law-abiding citizens will be a thing of the past. Enforcement of laws against economic and political crimes will exceed that of violent crimes (just look at what's coming under the new FEC law). War will be the prerogative of the administration. Civil liberties will be suspended for suspects, and their prosecution will not be carried out by an independent judiciary. In a police state, this becomes common practice rather than a rare incident.

Some argue that we already live in a police state, and Congress doesn't have the foggiest notion of what they're dealing with. So forget it and use your energy for your own survival. Some advise that the momentum towards the monolithic state cannot be reversed. Possibly that's true, but I'm optimistic that if we do the right thing and do not capitulate to popular fancy and the incessant war propaganda, the onslaught of statism can be reversed.

To do so, we as a people will once again have to dedicate ourselves to establishing the proper role a government plays in a free society. That does not involve the redistribution of wealth through force. It does not mean that government dictates the moral and religious standards of the people. It does not allow us to police the world by involving ourselves in every conflict as if it's our responsibility to manage a world American empire.

But it does mean government has a proper role in guaranteeing free markets, protecting voluntary and religious choices and guaranteeing private property ownership, while punishing those who violate these rules- whether foreign or domestic.

In a free society, the government's job is simply to protect liberty- the people do the rest. Let's not give up on a grand experiment that has provided so much for so many. Let's reject the police state.

Is this some kind of organized effort to repress us, and can you tell us who?
You're really exposing yourself to be on the lunatic fringe... it's not to late to embrace reason.

There you go with the name calling again. You deserve no answers when you expect none. Why do you even act surprised when I don't take your bait?

You are exposing yourself as nothing but a demagogue with poor discussion skills. Your persuasion technique really disappears when somebody continues to disagree with you past the opening essay you spew forth.

If you would like to have a discussion regarding whether or not it's constitutional for the government to issue any regulations on fire arms, feel free to do so. That isn't the subject of this thread.

Then why do you keep bringing it up? This is your canard, not mine.

Nor did I say that gun restricting legislation didn't exist. I made the factual statement that gun control is not a popular issue. To the contrary, increasing gun regulations and banning guns is an UNPOPULAR one. So much so that the Democrats, which had previously embraced the premise, are now silent on the issue. If this was not the case, you wouldn't see every Democrat Presidential candidate making sure he has regular photo-ops in the national media holding a fire arm.

I thought you said this was not the subject of this thread?!? So why are you pursuing it?

So, regardless who is President, they will not be able to pass some broad, federal directive banning fire arms. There are other things they could do to interfere with gun ownership, but seeing as how we live in a representative Democracy, let's effectively debate against these candidates in a persuasive manner, one that does not cause the other side to defensively refuse to listen, and work to make sure these kinds of candidates aren't elected.

You just contradicted your first statement. First you demand that I explain how we suddenly became a police state, now you state that they can't do it that way. You really can't have it both ways. Either it's incremental or it's not.

Your comment in no way resembles a comment to anything I said. In fact, it's irrational and foolish. The Bill of Rights shouldn't be breached, that's part of the "DEFENDING" it responsibility we have. This still remains independent of whether we have a police force with an armored car or not. You foolishly continue to link the two.

Again, this was a subject you threw into the mix, not I. We cannot defend anything that we don't have anymore. You are the one linking gun control to the subject of this thread. Stop projecting your lack of focus onto me.

THE EQUIPMENT AND TRAINING IS NOT THE ISSUE. Police, law, government, or the military- any organization can violate the constitution regardless their gear. You've mentioned examples regarding two officers probably armed with .38s burst into a home. Should we make sure they don't have revolers now too?

There you go again with the pathetic, same old lame "wet noodle" comment. Booooring. I've already told you what I think they should not have, yet you keep pushing your stupid premise into my words. It's clear that you haven't paid attention to one word I've said. But hey, keep it up Mr. Parrot, I've got all night.

Here's the reality. You're arguments and nonsensical, irrational, overly emotional, and paranoid.

How pathetic and paranoid must you be to think that they all are corrupt.

Show me where I said that???? Oh, how interesting. I state that YOU think police are incorruptible, and you turn it around by stating a non sequitur - that I must therefore think that they are ALL corrupt. Even a 5th grader would think that's a STUPID ARGUMENT.

And you call me nonsensical, irrational, and overly emotional? You're projecting again. Get off your high horse, Calabrio. You don't know everything, and you're not always right. You are completely in the dark about this, and one day you'll wake up and realize I was right.

Before I presume anything- let me ask. You would appear to be clearly inferring that he majority of police ARE corrupt. Is that what you are saying.

Well you've already inferred that, haven't you? Which just shows that you obviously don't know what you're even saying. First you infer something, then you ask me if you should infer it. What are you, 12 years old? I've never seen anybody, even Barry, string together such a long stretch of unblemished idioticy.

If not, why are we focusing on the rare, insignificant minority that may be susceptible to corruption, but would usually be caught and screened out by their honorable peers.

Right, it's insignificant when this kind of thing happens. Acceptable collateral damage, right? Gotcha.

Give me an example where police overkill has been truly punished, and I'll listen. It doesn't happen. Even in my own city I've seen cops go free with mild suspensions after plugging some poor guy who was in somebody else's truck with 15 bullets.

I understand government. I've formally studied government. I've read the founding documents, the writing said documents were inspired by, and the arguments that took place at the time. I have a copy of the federalist papers next to the Anti-federalist papers on the shelf next to my computer. I can go on, but my point has been made. Do not even attempt to lecture me on these philosophies.

Blah blah blah...Sounds like you need to go re-read it. Especially the words of Thomas Jefferson.

"The time to guard against corruption and tyranny is before they shall have gotten hold of us. It is better to keep the wolf out of the fold, than to trust to drawing his teeth and talons after he shall have entered." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:165

What you also fail to note, and it's the critical, paranoid under pinning of your arguments, is that the government in a republic like ours, is of and by the people. So you're adversarial position is not entirely accurate.

You continually state these issues in an us versus them format, as though that that American government is made up of some foreign entity with the intention to oppress.

Uhhh...have you ever listened to the Democrat Congressmen talk? What about Bill Klinton? I rest my case.

That's not the case. And so long as we have a civic minded population, that won't happen. By design.

That's the most idiotic, naive thing you've ever said. Again, tell that to the Jews, the Russians, the Chinese, et al.

Government is composed of citizens. And the military, also, citizens who believe in the constitution. Law enforcement, citizens as well.
You're inability to humanize and personalize these people that you indict is the critical failure at the foundation of your argument. And why, at it's core, it's so unreasonable.

You really have no idea whether or not I have the ability to humanize anyone. I choose my words; the fact that you try to draw elixir from them is your own stupid fault. And your pejorative characterizations of my arguments hold no weight in this discussion except to impugn your own credibility as someone who is unable to keep his/her emotions in check.

Balley happened in 1971. That's about FOUR decades ago. So, you find two that happened ten years ago, and then go back another 25 years for your next example. And you think this demonstrates some kind of scary trend?

Why do you not have scores of recent examples that have taken place during the Bush administration and the increased powers entrusted to law enforcement?

The same reason you have people being overwhelmed and destroyed by police overkill: We are seeing the beginning stages of a police state. Thanks for agreeing with me.

Again, was Ballew any less offensive despite the fact such a small number of agents were involved and they were so poorly armed?

According to YOU, Ballew was acceptable collateral damage, a necessary sacrifice in the interest of law, order, safety, and security.

So is it the issue of the equipment or the people that use it? And how is Ballew even a militarization issue and not just a couple reckless cops in the 1970s.

My issue is that the neighborhood beat cop, as you describe him, loses his appearance of humanity when he dresses in full military black body armor, PUTS ON A SKI MASK, and crashes through somebody's door for a routine search with a presigned warrant. Guarantee me that will never happen and I'll have no problem giving them all the toys they want.

Are you seriously going to bother bringing Gonzalez into this story? What is it an example of, how on Earth do you think that strengthens your argument? And international custody dispute that also involved kidnapping. Just another in the listed of isolated and extraordinary instances that you like to site thinking it makes a point.

I guess you didn't see the photos, did you?

And while you can find three examples over the course of 40 years, you still intend to demonstrate that we have institutionalize problems?

Talk about ignorant. I offered you PROOF. Just because the ATF doesn't publish all their internal documents (and why would they) doesn't indicate an absence of corruption. But the smoking gun, the tip of the iceberg, DOES indicate such corruption. Only you are too much in denial to see the truth.

I'm hardly naive, but you clearly are demonstrating yourself to be some kind of paranoid lunatic.

Gee, how many times are you going to call me that? Should I use the "sticks and stones" defense? Because you sound like a 5th grader yet again. Grow up and discuss things like a man and stop attacking or you will continue to be frustrated.

Are you trying to say that police officers don't live or participate in the community? Or can you not accept that reality because it is in stark contrast to your skewed us/them world view where all law enforcement are nameless, soulless jack booted thugs intent upon crushing your civil liberties.

Blah blah blah...more pointless rhetoric. You are inferring the hell out of things I didn't say. But what else is new? Your arguments are completely inane and childish.

The mere fact that an IAD division exists demonstrates the ability and desire of law enforcement to rid corruption from within its mists.

It is borne of necessity and you know it. Stop dodging the point, or are you next going to dispute the definition of the word "is?"

So, let's get this on the record, are you now also stating that the majority of people in law enforcement are corrupt and easily corruptible.

Oh, you're ASKING me now? Funny, I thought earlier you were TELLING ME, then you were asking me, then you were telling me, and now you're asking again. Jeez, talk about your bipolar issues. I think I'd rather be paranoid than whatever's wrong with you.

But apparently it's easy to get one like you to drink the crazy Kool-Aid.

What's that? Trying to use one that I've already used? Whatsamatter, run out of names to call and reuse, and now you're borrowing some of mine? You're getting repetitive, but then again, maybe it's past your bedtime. Let's ask your mom, shall we?

Are you talking about mace and pepper spray? Yeah, I think these are a valuable and useful means of employing non-lethal force to save the lives of both officers and civilians.

What need would law enforcement have for nukes, napalm, fuel-air bombs, or car bombs. These aren't law enforcement tools. They aren't designed for protection and they can not be used defensively. They serve no reasonable purpose. So no. This suggestion is clearly absurd.

You're the one who keeps bringing up the absurd arguments. This one is perfectly legitimate. If you say they should be able to use whatever it takes, and since criminals keep getting more and more high tech and powerful, eventually they'll have to use WMDs, right? Because I'm SUUUURE you don't want the MILITARY getting involved, right? You are being hoist with your own petard here. Whatever means whatever. If you can assert that I advocate completely disarming the police, then I can assert the obvious according to your own set of rules.

Pre-signed warrants and universal wiretaps mean that we have to discuss law, which gets more complicated than the very macro arguments I've been making. What do either of these things have to do with whether a cop should be able to wear armor or use a flash bang?

Incorrect, and obvious as well. If police have the tools to oppress citizens, all it takes is corruption to make it happen. And you think it CAN'T happen? You're the one who's delusional.

If you'd provide direct and coherent responses to any of the challenges, I wouldn't need to repeat them.

The problem with your challenges is that they are absurd and rhetorical and completely devoid of any desire to actually discuss the point.

You're right. Bank robbers don't have the luxury of being able to out gun the police department, slaughtering LEOs and civilians without consequence, fleeing in a fast car. Why? Because law enforcement armed themselves accordingly, they eliminated that fire power advantage, and through technology like the radio, they eliminated the ability for the criminals to evade capture simply by driving a Ford V8.

But.... wait. That decades old example is awfully similar to the North Hollywood Shoot out I referred to earlier in the thread. Police couldn't stop two bad guys with armor piercing ammo, automatic rifles, and body armor were able to open fire on the streets. The problem was, police lacked body armor, and their handguns couldn't pierce the armor. It wasn't until SWAT showed up and police borrowed assault rifles from the local store, that these men were able to be stopped. And in a borrowed armored car, they went around a picked up the wounded.

So, it wasn't just a centuries old problem.

If police shouldn't be "militarized" as defined by their gear and training, how would you have liked the police to have resolved that problem?

This one single quote is how you should have been discussing this topic all along. The problem is, since you've done nothing but attack me up until now, this isn't even worth pursuing until you drop the rhetoric and start acting like a grownup again. But if you need to, just come back to this paragraph and you'll know where to start. However, I know that you will continue to be petulant as this subject OBVIOUSLY hits a tender spot with you.

That's a foolish statement. Certainly a ridiculous scenario. And if you can find some crazy isolated incident where that occurred, I will support you claim that it's an ridiculous abuse of power and misallocation of resources.

All you have to do is watch Dallas SWAT and you'll see what I'm talking about.

If it's an institutional problem, there should be hundreds of examples. Given that there are 800,000 officers in this country. If the problem is institutional, you should have no problem finding, at least 8,000 examples within the past year or two. That's presuming only 10% of this institutional problem is involved and they are only responsible for one bad bust every other year.

That's a false authority argument, and it further indicates your propensity to accept collateral damage in order to advance your "police state."

I've stated my point, I've demonstrated how wrong you are.
You have NO ARGUMENT here. You say these institutions are bad, then you point to a handful of examples over the course of 40 years. You say the institution is corrupt, but you have only these three dated examples.

Blah blah blah..."you have no argument here..." I just gave you an example of an incident in my own city. You want the link to the story?

I can point to historic events to demonstrate the consequence to a hypothetical action. However, you want to claim that a situation exists when there is no evidence to support such a claim.

Read the speech by Ron Paul.

How can we live in a police state if it's perfectly legal to go on a website and trash the government? How can it be a police state if you can spend your times in a radical mosque and coordinate ways to finance terror?

Your argument is specious. Just because we don't have a fully authoritarian police state YET doesn't mean we don't have the beginnings of one. Again, are you so naive as to think it will NEVER happen here? And you actually ADVOCATE the conditions which can bring it about! And people like you call people like me PARANOID? That's ironic.

So you are saying we're on a slow, 100+ year march towards a police state? Is this some kind of grand design put into effect by people who intend to turn over the country to their great-great grandchildren?

Where did you get the 100 years? Another straw man. This is getting boring. You truly are NOT GOOD AT THIS. You have called me names what, 15-20 times in this post alone? And you act like you want to actually discuss something? Bah.

You mention Katrina, but I don't know what you think that proves? We should be alarmed by that. But that doesn't mean that there is anything wrong with having a SWAT team or beat cops with kevlar vests.

Of course you wouldn't. You advocate the police state.

The decision to disarm regular people in New Orleans was wrong. However, from the anecdotal information I've received about Katrina, law certainly wasn't vigorously enforcing this rule. I've heard numerous stories of civilians and law enforcement SHARING ammo.

Link please!

Because POLICE ARE PEOPLE. They are members of the community. They aren't nameless, mindless, tools of government repression. And to think so is an insult to the 800k men and women serving as LEOs and their families.

You don't know what I think. You are guessing again.

You have demonstrated this distrust consistently throughout this thread. You can not back pedal from this.

I don't have to back pedal from YOUR false straw man arguments attributing to me words that are not mine. End of story.

Connecting dots seems like a game well suited for you. Maybe you can color in the picture with crayons when your done. Obviously logic and reason are beyond you though. There are no points left to address. You refuse to answer, honestly, any challenges that are presented to you, while I've certainly attempted to respond to every challenge you've posed.

You're weaselly, overly personal, rants really become tiresome. You are free to revel in your delusional, paranoia because we DO NOT LIVE in a police state.

YOU are calling MY posts weaselly, overly personal rants? Go back and look at your own. This is a clear example of the pot calling the kettle black. You are a first class hypocrite with a heretofore unrevealed ton of repressed rage and you're vomiting it forth on all of us. Got it all out, big boy?

Obviously, this thread is redundant. You've been given enough rope to hang yourself several times over by now and I tire of watching your death dance at the end of the metaphoric rope.

If that is how you see it. Now go see your pshrink, I think you've missed too many appointments.

 

[Calabrio]

That last post is so nonsensical. So bizarre. And so embarrassingly stupid, I will refrain from responding to it in quote format. There's simply no point in doing so. You've raised no valid points. You responded to virtually no challenges. And you continue to display just how irrational and immature you can be.

When challenged, you lack the ability to discuss your ideas, support your arguments, or do anything that resembles persuasion. You're inability to do this means you are completely worthless in a forum like this or in the political realm. You may possess strength when it comes to rallying those converted to your special brand of paranoia, but outside those circles, you're more of a liability to any cause you support.

I asked you when we found ourself in this police state. You responded by saying it didn't happen over night and failed to specify when this change manifested itself. I ask again, in your opinion, in which decade did it become evident to you that things had devolved into a "police state." Clearly, these things don't have to happen overnight, but it's usually possible to identify a period where it becomes apparent.

And if that is too difficult for you, perhaps you could simply tell us when we did not live in a so-called "police state." Was it a police state in the 1865? What about 1930? Tell us what do you think. There should be an apparent contrast between a police state and a non-police state. So perhaps you could provide us some examples.

This should not be a difficult question for you to answer.

By the way, saying that you are on the lunatic fringe or demonstrating paranoia is not name calling. It's an honest assessment of your political position. You're hypersensitivity is really hypocritical, and you use that false indignation as an excuse to avoid answering challenging questions or statements.

"You deserve no answers when you expect none" is not a sufficient response. Not only do I expect one, you should be held accountable to provide them. Unfortunately, all of your posts have been exactly that. When you are challenged, you provide a reason why you don't need to confront said challenge. You engage in this same behavior post after post.

Like clock work, you then go into a "blah-blah-blah" mode which is akin to a small, immature child plugging their ears singing "I can't hear you."

And if you say that I don't know what you think, that would be the result of your embarrassing inability to express yourself clearly or consistently. Perhaps these confusions would be cleared up if you had the confidence and ability to respond to my direct challenges instead of simply providing excuses as to why you don't need to.

In your last post, you replied to about 41 separate quotes. At best, in all of that, you only posted 2 responses that in anyway addressed the challenge made in the quote. And you did so poorly, I might add. With the exception of a document dump provided by quoting Ron Paul, the rest of your post consisted of a few dozen ways to avoid answering my questions and marginalizing the challenges. That's pathetic.

What's especially strange is how, this is a thread you started, but you're position is very much in contrast to the one presented by Balko.

The thread starts out with the claim that over the past 25 years local police departments have engaged in militarization. Radley Balko says that militarization is a "troubling trend" defined by the use of military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and even heavy equipment by civilian police departments Balko takes issue very specifically with the equipment made available to local police, even complaining about the use of military surplus to equip the police.

Balko then goes on to state the value of SWAT teams when used in violent, emergency situations. Hostage situations, terrorism, and bank robberies are examples he provides. Balko appears to take issue with their increased use in routine warrant service in drug cases and other nonviolent crimes.

Balkos point is simple. That by employing these SWAT teams into situations that are not absolutely necessary, the risk of a innocent civilian death increases due to the increased intensity and narrow margin of error in these situations.

First off, I do not take issue with the equipping of any technology that enables them to better serve the community in a better way that increases their personal security.

Second, SWAT teams are critically important tools for law enforcement. Balko would agree.

And third, I would agree that they need to be utilized in a very responsible manner. It is understandable how a police department may over utilize this force. Not because of some twisted conspiracy, or some kind of deliberate suppression of our rights, but simply because no one wants to see police officers get shot. A SWAT team moves fast, subdues their targets, and the overwhelming majority of the time, does so without anyone being critically injured.

I disagree with Balko on several things though. Low level criminals often are dangerous. They can be armed. The increased use of SWAT forces has to do with the increased danger to police officers. So when presented with a situation where an officer will likely be shot at, or sending in SWAT team that'll secure a home within a minute, vastly decreasing the possibility of a shooting, I'd support the SWAT decision.

But it is absolutely true and easily argued, that these teams are OVER utilized. I'll even provide a link to demonstrate the dangers associated with this.

http://reason.com/files/58eba09a914d0927da75a44c928e9325.jpg

But this is a policy problem. Not baby-steps to a police state. And not because police officers are tyrants.

Local police do need to review their use of SWAT when serving warrants to non-violent, low risk suspect. Presuming the information provided in those examples are complete, then they are truly tragic. My brief research on some of these cases do show that they are a little misleading, but not enough to distract from the greater point.

But what you, Fossten, are arguing still is not entirely clear. You are against the so-called "militarization" of the police, based on equipment and training. You seem to think that there is a threat of tyranny when local law enforcement is well armed. But you won't explain what kind of armament and equipment is acceptable. And when asked, you refuse to answer. In the last post you even stated that my support of police officers wearing bullet proof vests was an endorsement of a "police state." So, lest I presume to much, that would mean you think that police officers should not be equipped with a bullet proof vest.

You also have stated that non-lethal force is too dangerous and shouldn't be employed either.

You appears to oppose the existence of SWAT teams, because they appear to militaristic, but then thinks those responsibilities should be turned over to the actual military.

None of your statements make sense when viewed rationally.

Security and liberty are always at odds with each other. It's a very dynamic relationship.

By the way, if you want to really read about Ballew, look here:
Kenyon F. Ballew v UNITED STATES

If you have a civil last word or just seek to clarify your position, I'll see no reason to respond and am quite happy to give you the last word.

 

[fossten]

I think I can sum up your thoughts thusly:

1. You are a name calling demagogue who has no self control.
2. You believe in the infallibility of government and law enforcement.
3. You advocate giving law enforcement unlimited power and scope while giving lip service to "defending our rights" as an afterthought.
4. Anyone who disagrees with you is not only wrong, but bizarre, paranoid, a lunatic, oh, and also bizarre, bizarre, and a paranoid lunatic. Apparently, you have a love affair with certain words and cannot formulate your thoughts without resorting to childish insults.

My position on this is that law enforcement is encroaching on the abilities of citizens to govern and rule themselves, which is not what the founders intended. This upsets the balance between freedom and the rule of law and develops an "us vs. them" culture. Your interpretation of history is different from mine, but then again, you haven't read the history that I've read either. As far as I'm concerned, you are ignorant of what is going on, and you prefer things to remain that way. So be it.

We disagree on this. Knock off all the retarded name calling and let it go.

 

[Iszi]

OMG... I'm gonna have to print out this thread (AND linked articles!) so I can bookmark my spot as I read through it in the next MONTH or so!

You guys have WAY too much time on your hands.

 

[mholhut]

"The sheep are always afraid of the sheep dog until the wolf is at the door." - Col. Dave Grossman.

Most people have a dislike for the police until they need them. Then they complain that they're not there in time, or unequipped or untrained to handle a situation. It comes with the territory... I'm used to it.

As for the militarization of the police; yes, I believe it's necessary in some cases:

#1, you never bring a knife to a gunfight. A sidearm and the handgun round is not a magic tool and when it comes down to it, it does a terrible job of stopping a threat. With any hint of danger, be it from a knife to any form of weapon, the police should meet that threat with greater firepower; meaning long guns in either the carbine or shotgun platforms.

#2, Verginia Tech, Columbine, Jonesboro, Paducah, etc., etc., etc. The police have to act quickly and respond appropriately in the ever so popular active-shooter scenarios. For more reasons than I care to explain, the police need long guns... carbines, patrol rifles, etc., to meet this threat. Lessons learned in the past showed that if the police did what they were first instructed to do (form a perimeter and wait for SWAT to arrive,) that lives were lost. Now, law enforcement are trained to to quickly go in and eliminated that threat, and by doing so, they save lives. If I ever have to go into one of those situations and I see the bad guy(s), and they have the potential to cause or have caused imenent threat or loss of life to others... that bad guy will be no more. Because if I hesitate, I can't live with the fact that I stood in a position to end that threat and didn't or couldn't act if I didn't have the right tool for the job... and another innocent life was lost.

#3, Yes, less than lethal weapons are some of the tools of the trade, but also not widely available. But, they are not the end-all solution to every problem and regulated by most states.

#4, Police don't shoot to wound... ever. Police are trained to shoot until the threat has ceased. That is done two ways, by severing the central nervous system, or by causing hypovolemic shock. Considering that a man, standing 21 feet away, (Teuller Drill) can run at a police officer and slash him before the officer can get his firearm out of the holster, I for one, would not hesitate to shoot anyone who posed a deadly threat to me at a distance of 5 feet.

#5, The abundance of firepower by criminals make it necessary that law enforcement meet that threat with equal or greater firepower; see #1 above.

As for the issuance of search warrants and the rules and laws in which they are obtained, that's between you and your lawmakers and those who put judges in place, not between you and the police. But from the user end of things, I see a need for agencies to be militarized.

I stand on that line, and I fight for those who can't fight for themselves.