Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

 
I agree, and so would the founding fathers.
 
There were many references made about this, but this one stands out in my mind:
 
"What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now, it must be evident, that, under this provision, together with their other powers, Congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as to make a standing army necessary. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." -- Elbridge Gerry, 1789

 

An article I found and completely agree with. Nothing but smoke and mirrors. Just like the latest of many scandals by Hillary, this will be "news" for a few days just to make the dumb ass sheeple believe that the government and media owned by the government might just give a fuck about them. I'll bet you in two weeks we will never hear another word about this.

The scandals and atrocities committed every day by government are systematically orchestrated to be slightly worse than the last every time and in rapid succession right after the ladder has been forgotten and replaced by a fresh pile of shit. This way they normalize tyranny at a very slow rate. So slow that the population has no time to keep up and just goes on with their lives ignoring all prior atrocities and hoping that maybe next time we slam our own figurative dicks in the door that it will feel better this time.

If we could take the current state of bullshit 15-20 years in the past people would be pissed the fuck off. If we took this bullshit back 100 or 200 years the people would go to war against this corrupt government and hang them.
Today we just accept it as the way it is and the brainwashed masses cry out for more tyranny based fully on lies and psychopathology.




http://truthvoice.com/2015/05/obamas-paramilitary-police/

Police Shooting Missouri Fundraising
On Monday, US President Barack Obama travelled to Camden, New Jersey, America's poorest city, to praise its brutal police department and reaffirm his support for federal programs that have transferred billions of dollars in military hardware to local police departments.

Reports of police brutality by Camden cops have nearly doubled since 2011, and last year Camden had substantially more reported brutality complaints than Jersey City, which has four times more people.

“This city is on to something,” Obama declared, referring to Camden.

America's major news outlets, which function as little more than state propaganda outlets, could be counted on to report the exact opposite of reality. According to the New York Times, Obama used his visit to “crack down on overly aggressive police tactics,” and “limit … military-style equipment for police forces.”

These claims are based on Obama's announcement that the White House will no longer transfer a small range of highly-specialized military assets to local police departments, including bayonets, .50 caliber rifles and tracked fighting vehicles.

These types of ordnance are, from a military counterinsurgency standpoint, either obsolete or inappropriate. The US Army, for example, has dropped bayonet training for recruits, while .50 caliber rifles are generally not considered anti-personnel weapons. They are used instead to target communications systems, grounded aircraft and radar installations, meaning that no sensible anti-civilian death squad would carry them.

Other restrictions proposed by Obama are almost entirely meaningless. The Times reports that the list of prohibited items includes “camouflage uniforms,” but a quick glance at the White House document outlining the proposals notes that the restriction does not include “woodland or desert patterns or solid color uniforms,” i.e., the great majority of US military combat uniforms.

Obama's order explicitly permits the provision of wheeled armored combat vehicles known as MRAPs, as well as assault and sniper rifles, belt-fed machine guns and military aircraft and helicopters.

In fact, essentially none of the hardware deployed by militarized police during the crackdown on peaceful protests in Ferguson, Missouri last year falls under the White House's prohibitions.

Recent deployments of combat weapons by local police forces have been criticized by sections of the military, which chided the unprofessional character with which police handled their weapons while cracking down on mass demonstrations. Monday's announcement is the administration's response to such criticisms: the ordinance transferred to local police will now be more closely monitored, and police will be better trained to use it.



In other words, use of combat weapons by the police will be institutionalized, regularized, and made more like the military, not less.

Together with the new police militarization guidelines, Obama announced an additional $163 million in funding for local police forces, with a large share of the funds targeted for training police to use military hardware.

Obama's announcement was also timed to correspond with the release of a report by his so-called Task Force on 21st Century Policing, which issued a set of non-binding recommendations for local police departments to rebuild “community trust.”

The actual content of these proposals, however, can be seen in Camden, which recently overhauled its police department to implement “community policing” practices, cracking down on minor crimes and responding to opposition with extreme violence. As a result, arrests for minor offenses soared, with citations for broken taillights increasing by more than 300 percent, according to the ACLU. Reports of police brutality also increased sharply.

In his remarks, Obama offered effusive praise for the police, declaring, “The overwhelming number of police officers are good, fair, honest and care deeply about their community, putting their lives on the line every day.”

These remarks were aimed at solidarizing the White House with the police amid a continuing wave of violence directed against the population, giving rise to protests in St. Louis, New York City, Baltimore and other cities. Through the end of April, police killed 392 people in the US, putting them on track to take significantly more lives in 2015 than even the 1,100 they killed last year.

Every year, cops kill more people in the United States than the number of US soldiers killed in Iraq in 2004, at the height of the conflict.

This reign of police murder and violence takes place with the full support of the Obama administration, which has transferred billions of dollars in military armaments to local police, while working behind the scenes with local authorities to acquit killer cops, such as Darren Wilson, who killed Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri and Daniel Pantaleo, the killer of Eric Garner in Staten Island.

Even while working to shield cops from prosecution, the White House has helped to coordinate the military/police crackdown on peaceful demonstrators in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, and in Baltimore last month.

The ultimate root of the ongoing wave of police violence and the militarization of society is the pervasive growth of social inequality. Camden, with 40 percent of its residents below the poverty line, embodies the disastrous impoverishment of the American working class that has taken place over the past several decades. The fact that Obama chose this city to tout his proposals on more aggressive policing expresses the fundamental reality that the ruling class has no answer to poverty besides ever-greater police repression.

Andre Damon

 

I could not possibly disagree more with every point you just tried to make.

 

Based off what I see, I highly doubt many regular posters in politics would agree.. but they typically offer counterpoints. I have no doubt in my mind that if you were able to resurrect our founders as they were back then but give their brain an update of everything that has happened, most of them would wake up and say "what the fuck did you people do to our country?".. and it would be in reference to both the people and the state. And the point that the people were well armed before the police is solid.. hell, I even remember a pro-gun poster on here basically celebrating the idea that the police were once behind the people in terms of firepower and got jacked up. The people have always been on par, or close to it, with the military in terms of guns.. but it was the police who had to deal with the people and the police weren't equipped in the beginning. Now they too joined in the arms race.. and its like, what did you expect?

 

I too would celebrate if I found out that the police were seriously out gunned by the public. If it were up to me cops would be hard pressed to be aloud to even carry a revolver.
They have more than proven themselves time and time again to be grossly incompetent with firearms or any weapons for that matter. I trust the average citizen to be open carrying a long rifle way sooner than the cop with a pistol.

Beat me to it.

 

15 years ago there was a kid in high school whose dad owned a 50 cal rifle and would brag about how it ripped deer up. My uncle used to, probably still has it, an assault rifle with a grenade launcher on it. There isn't much that you can't get your hands on with enough effort. It might not be fully functional, but you can even buy a damn tank.. and with the right money and effort could have it fully operational. Like hell the people aren't close to being on par with the military.. our entire country is militarized, not just the police.

 

Really dude.. you're complaining that you can't buy a fucking cannon off a tank? Seeing as you can buy tanks with their cannons on.. you could own one with enough effort. You might as well bitch that you can't own nuclear bombs too..

Plus, you're an individual.. not the people as a whole. It's not my fault you don't have the resources to purchase a weapon like you posted.. but in general, the people could get their hands on this kind of stuff. Keep stretching.

 

Careful.. you're about to rip something stretching that hard. In no way shape or form do the people need access to guns mounted on aircraft. That's just ridiculous thinking.

 

Maybe you missed it since you typically willfully ignore things.. but what I and Fizzly were talking about were 'battle rifles', not fucking cannons. There is nothing for me to stretch there child.. I've been talking about the same thing the whole time. You're the one stretching it to tank and jet fighter mounted cannons.. lol, you'd have to be mental if you think the people should have access to that kind of stuff.

 

America - the place where the gubmint lets you keep your guns in exchange for your freedom.

 

Honestly, you are intelligent enough to know what I am talking when I say guns after stemming from battle rifles. If you truly don't understand the difference between battle rifles and god damn cannons in this discussion, then you're being willfully ignorant to feed that contradiction monster inside you.

Aside from the willful gun SNAFU, the whole point is that when you have a militarized society, which ours is, you're going to end up with a militarized police force.. that is just common sense. I don't like our police being militarized.. but I also don't like our people being militarized. If the people want the police to demilitarize, then the people will eventually need to demilitarize too. Leave the militarization to the military.. and as much as your kind swears the government will turn its tanks and jet fighters on the people if we don't have the ability to defend ourselves, its just not going to happen in this day and age. First off, the military is made up of the people.. and secondly, the government would just be opening the door for us to get raped by another country. Like I said, they are dumb.. just not that dumb.

 

What I said isn't false.. you only say that after you shoved your stupid argument for cannons into the mix. What I said is correct.. the people are as well armed as the military in terms of guns. Problem was, the police are the ones who deal with the people and they weren't as well armed as the people in the beginning. If the people want to keep their assault rifles and military equipment, fine.. just don't bitch when the police respond in kind. The people don't need vehicle mounted cannons.. at all.. but you seem think the people should be able to have them, which begs the question, why can't the police have them? Sure, you can make the argument that the people should be as well armed as the military.. but common sense should tell you that the police will be equal as well.

And no, you are not only a contradiction monster when someone says something false.. cause I haven't said anything false and I've seen enough of you to know that you have an Asperger's like contradiction mindset where it doesn't matter what the other person says, you'll pull anything out your ass to contradict it.

 

 
I'm not really excluding those "big guns".. you were including them to Aspergerly contradict what I was saying about guns. I mean seriously.. your elbow had to have hit your rectum when you pulled this out your ass..

 
But anyway.. the people have always had access to military weapons. They furthest they fall behind in terms of weaponry is typically a generation. Here is a post on a gun forum that basically says what I am saying: http://smith-wessonforum.com/2nd-amendment-forum/290683-civilian-ownership-military-style-weapons.html The people today have access to assault rifles.. they might not be legal to be fully automatic (with good reason), but they can buy assault rifles. You can buy assault rifles with grenade launchers.. for the right money you can even buy live grenades. My uncle I mentioned earlier is a gun nut, easiest way to sum him up is he is someone with Gulf War syndrome who was never in the Gulf War or any war period. He had plenty of assault rifles, grenades, and even C4. You can buy 50 cal rifles.. you can buy a fucking tank! Speaking of jets.. you might not be able to buy a US fighter jet with ease, but a civilian can buy a fighter jet, usually from Russia: http://www.mademan.com/mm/how-buy-fighter-jet.html Just because these things aren't cheap enough for most people to buy doesn't mean you're not allowed to buy it. The people have always been no more than a step or two behind the military since our country has been founded.. and with the right amount of money and effort, a civilian can buy all sorts of military equipment and restore it (obviously in secret) to be fully operational.