# Militarization of the Police



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

What's your opinion? Should police departments have access to military hardware? Where do we draw the line?

Controversial armored police vehicle factory expands production to meet demand | Fox News

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

MikeTango said:


> What's your opinion? Should police departments have access to military hardware? Where do we draw the line?
> 
> Controversial armored police vehicle factory expands production to meet demand | Fox News
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I'm strongly against militarized police. If they dress up like soldiers eventually they will act like soldiers.

Not saying that I am against SWAT, they are a tool that is needed but with saying that I believe they are over used.

Same as a no nock warrant. It's way over used.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## rice paddy daddy (Jul 17, 2012)

There are only five towns in our entire county, one of which has its own police force.
The rest of the county is covered by the sheriffs department, which has no desire or money for this equipment.
We don't even have a SWAT team, let alone anything like a bomb squad.

Remember, real estate is all about location, location, location.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

I would guess most of these militarized police are in larger urban areas. 
Protect and serve is fast becoming report and control.


----------



## Camel923 (Aug 13, 2014)

Look at all the alphabet soup federal agencies. Seems like each one has its own assault troops armed to the teeth. So they have to use them to demonstrate need in thier ever growing budgets. This is how you get situations like the Bundy ranch, Ruby Ridge and of course BBQing the Branch Dividians with their children in order to save them. The heads of agencies and departments and higher ups play the political games rather than morally sound judgement. Ever notice when things go wrong no one at government house is ever really punished?


----------



## Chipper (Dec 22, 2012)

They are facing an increasing threat with terrorism and the general public wacko's. A 38 special or a Glock isn't enough. Having an armored vehicle isn't an issue unless they start getting tanks, cannons, or mini guns.


----------



## unclefred (Nov 28, 2017)

Generally , I have been dead set against it. However, I can see that it is probably justifiable these days in the major cities with unstable ghettos. That's redundant.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Personally, I like cops. My MC rode with "The Blue Knights" and I got to meet a lot of decent guys.

And just remember, a coked-up A-hole with a bump-stock can kill as many police officers as civilians.

In my state you can open-carry if you have a CCW permit, and even that is going to change. You'd be amazed at how many fights I was never in.

Using that logic, if a police armored personnel carrier rolled up next a mob of idiots or terrorists, how long to you think it would take for the cowards to scatter?


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

"The trucks, built on a shortened Ford F-550 chassis, weigh roughly nine tons, fabricated from flat sheets of American-made bulletproof steel and bulletproof glass."

 I don't like it, but I think that it was inevitable, and there are towns that have APC's already, from the Army. Thankfully that is dying out, because the treads tear up the road. The current model looks pretty tough, and I think that it will grow in popularity with the cops. The whole thing is nuts, and I remember a peaceful America; but that place is dead and gone.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

MisterMills357 said:


> I don't like it. An APC is OK, if it is not mounted with a machine gun; but sooner or later it will be. And there is no good answer, if the people become evil, then evil measures will be used to control them.


Totally agree

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

MaterielGeneral said:


> _
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I changed my posting, to reflect the Bearcat F-550, but I stand by what I said in the quote of my original post. I think that things will become more and more evil; and America could see APC's with machine guns, being used by the police.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Eh, the public is fickle. When the guy with the bump-stock shot up Las Vegas, the unwashed screamed, "Where were the police?"

If a cop shoots an armed banger then the officer gets sued for misconduct.

If one of these trucks saves a white family, the crowd will cheer. If another truck runs over an illegal alien there will be correlations made to Hitler.

It's a truck, not an A-bomb. It goes vroom, vroom. I have an F-150. With enough Kevlar and reactive armor I could play, too. So what's next, make F-150s outlawed with semiautomatics?


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

I want police to be able to perform ICE / Customs BP roles too ( And augment the NG / Military if it all boils over too


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

THE thing, I don't agree withPresident Trump on. Yesterday I watched multiple MRAPS on the scene of Sante Fe high school Pure BS!
These people want military toys join the Military. If you want to protect and Serve the citizens stop acting like you're soldiers.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Urinal Cake said:


> These people want military toys join the Military. If you want to protect and Serve the citizens stop acting like you're soldiers.


Did you know that I heard the same thing during the 1980s when the Illinois State Patrol went too automatic pistols. The public--and some in law enforcement--thought that the weapon for a cop was a revolver.

In fact, New York City was proud of the fact that they put their money into training with revolvers rather than buy "toys."

Their uniforms of that time even had some longer coats that covered the revolvers altogether.

The world keeps turning. Did you know that some of the alloys found in the knives I sell were not even around for NASA. Whether it's sad or not, the criminals are going to use automatic pistols and ARs and AKs. To expect law enforcement to restrict themselves to the technology of the 1980s so they look more civilian than military is not realistic.


----------



## Urinal Cake (Oct 19, 2013)

The Tourist said:


> Did you know that I heard the same thing during the 1980s when the Illinois State Patrol went too automatic pistols. The public--and some in law enforcement--thought that the weapon for a cop was a revolver.
> 
> In fact, New York City was proud of the fact that they put their money into training with revolvers rather than buy "toys."
> 
> ...


No issue with the fire arms it's the Heavy Hardware that's the problem. Boston had gunships after 2 kids that virtually shut down an entire city. MRAPs are they driving over IED's?
50 Cals n Humvees? Yeah, no thank you.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

The way they are gunning LEO down, give them anything they want and if they ask for one give them 3. No LEO should die at the hand of a mad man or women of some BLM activist. If they want a tank have it delivered full of fuel;.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

I wear a drop down IFAK bag on my left leg. A guy came to me and said that by wearing the IFAK, I look like the US military fighting in Iraq. He said he is against the militarization of the police and I should not be wearing my IFAK. I told the guy that the IFAK's purpose is to save a person's life is one was bleeding to death. It was initially intended for personal and law enforcement use only. However, we were just recently required to use it on civilians because medics took time in reaching victims. I told the guy I will remember not to use my militarized IFAK on him if I find him bleeding to death.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

I'm not sure the heavy hardware is for things like bangers selling drug or protest marches. I think the cops are looking down the road and seeing organized and well funded terrorists openly fighting in our streets.

During one of the school shootings it was learned that the shooter had +30 run-ns with the police. The public immediately lashed out at law enforcement for not doing enough.

If terrorists go public here, and we use 9x19mm handguns and squad cars only, those same people will chide the cops for not updating equipment and intelligence notifications.

If you want peace, prepare for war.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> I'm not sure the heavy hardware is for things like bangers selling drug or protest marches. I think the cops are looking down the road and seeing organized and well funded terrorists openly fighting in our streets.
> 
> During one of the school shootings it was learned that the shooter had +30 run-ns with the police. The public immediately lashed out at law enforcement for not doing enough.
> 
> ...


We may be fighting openly in the streets sooner then people think. LEO is looking ahead. I don't want law enforcement to be outgunned but I do think a paramilitary police force has the potential to go sideways. Governments don't exactly have the greatest of track records when it comes to abuse of power.

I call on a city in my area who's fire department requested automatic AR's as part of their load out. It's a very slippery slope.


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Prepared One said:


> I call on a city in my area who's fire department requested automatic AR's as part of their load out. It's a very slippery slope.


Perhaps not in all municipalities, but in some cities the firefighters are shot at on the way to the fire. Their request might be prudent.

And that's the crux of my argument. There are still some towns like "Mayberry" where everyone knows each other. Then again there are some American cities where cops avoid certain areas to keep their squad cars from being shot up. I think the first time I heard that was pertaining to East St. Louis.

I'd also like to offer a new slant. If we chide the cops, have we first looked at our own behavior?

My first carry gun was a SW 60, a J-frame, stainless, 5-shot, .38 SPL. I now have an SW 642, (essentially the same revolver) and I consider it a "last ditch, back-up revolver."

My "go to coffee" firearm is a 1911 Kimber .45 ACP, replete with Hornady Critical Defense ammunition and a Crimson Trace.

Seeing that lots of WWII solders carried a 1911, you could argue that I have "militarized." The issue is not my hardware, but what I face in modern America. Taken from that perspective, can you blame the police for doing the same?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

The Tourist said:


> Perhaps not in all municipalities, but in some cities the firefighters are shot at on the way to the fire. Their request might be prudent.
> 
> And that's the crux of my argument. There are still some towns like "Mayberry" where everyone knows each other. Then again there are some American cities where cops avoid certain areas to keep their squad cars from being shot up. I think the first time I heard that was pertaining to East St. Louis.
> 
> ...


I don't blame them at all. There are "no go zones" in a lot of major cities including Houston. As I said, I don't want our law enforcement out gunned by any means. I do think there is a huge potential for abuse however. I don't trust our government to do what's in the people's best interest so I am leery of them gaining any more power then necessary. Give them what they need and then watch them like a hawk will only work till they have so much power they don't care who is watching.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

Let them have whatever they want as long as I can own one too.


----------



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

KUSA said:


> Let them have whatever they want as long as I can own one too.


I totally agree and the founding fathers do as well!! The true intent of the second amendment... to include ALL current military weaponry. I wonder what the founding father's thoughts would be on nuclear weapons? Not that I'd want one... where in the heck would you keep it??

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

I doubt the founding fathers would have wanted anyone to possess nukes. They were not war mongers.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

MikeTango said:


> What's your opinion? Should police departments have access to military hardware? Where do we draw the line?
> 
> Controversial armored police vehicle factory expands production to meet demand | Fox News
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


Yes..give the nice cops whater military toys that need. Liberals have declared war on those poor folks..and when they get rid of them they will be coming for us. Kindly quit watching CNN so much. Thanks.


----------



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

bigwheel said:


> Kindly quit watching CNN so much.


Quit watching CNN several years ago when we cut the cable...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

KUSA said:


> I doubt the founding fathers would have wanted anyone to possess nukes. They were not war mongers.


Nukes, chem or bio weapons are not covered by 2A. Think about it, a nuke will kill unintentionally while firearms are more personal


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

All rights seem to be somewhat conditional. I think keeping nukes out of the hands of civilians would be a good limit on the 2nd Ammendment. lol.


----------



## Smitty901 (Nov 16, 2012)

KUSA said:


> I doubt the founding fathers would have wanted anyone to possess nukes. They were not war mongers.


 They did not know what a nuke was nor in their wildest dreams envision one. I do not know of any LEO agency that has full auto weapons .


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

I am going to weigh in this topic as an LEO who has some military gear from uncle sam. I work for a small department with only 35 or so officers. There was a time when if you wanted body armor, you had to buy it yourself. The government then started making surplus US Army MP vests available and we grabbed up a pile of them. The only reason I had armor for my first 2-3 years on the job was because of these programs. We were issued a handgun and a shotgun, but that was it. Then using the same military surplus program we were able to put some M14's in our vehicles. I never had to take a human life with one but there was more than once I was damn glad to have 20 rounds of 7.62x51 in my hands versus 15 shots of 9mm. Even our riot gear came from the military. Flash forward a bunch of years and we got an armorer vehicle. Even we thought of it as more of a worst case scenario item or a toy, until an officer got ambushed after a nutcase made a fake 911 call and that vehicle was able to go get him out of the line of fire. He died later, but he died in the hospital with his family and not in a gravel driveway soaked in blood. That vehicle was his only chance of survival. 

So we can take what the media has to say about this so-called militarization of police and we can make cracks about it, but those items save lives and equip officers that otherwise would not have what they need. Our tax dollars already paid for this stuff we might as well be using it versus raising taxes to buy a non-military version of the same things. If the military starts offering up shoulder fired rockets, mounted .50 cal machine guns, Abrams tanks, or Apache helicopters I will join in on the complaining. But right now all we can pretty much get are items most departments already spend your tax dollars on. Department's that can afford it anyway. 

I should also point out that most of the police officers I know from all over the country are conservative, pro-constitution, pro-gun, and pro-liberty. They have no plans to be the jack booted thugs of the US Government. They just want to keep the peace and go home a live at the end of their shift. If a government supplied ballistic helmet or even a Beretta M9 helps them do those things, then by all means keep the stuff coming.


----------



## Coastie dad (Jan 2, 2016)

It doesn't happen often, but I may be inclined to at least consider rethinking my stance a wee bit after reading this thread.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

patrioteer said:


> i am going to weigh in this topic as an leo who has some military gear from uncle sam. I work for a small department with only 35 or so officers. There was a time when if you wanted body armor, you had to buy it yourself. The government then started making surplus us army mp vests available and we grabbed up a pile of them. The only reason i had armor for my first 2-3 years on the job was because of these programs. We were issued a handgun and a shotgun, but that was it. Then using the same military surplus program we were able to put some m14's in our vehicles. I never had to take a human life with one but there was more than once i was damn glad to have 20 rounds of 7.62x51 in my hands versus 15 shots of 9mm. Even our riot gear came from the military. Flash forward a bunch of years and we got an armorer vehicle. Even we thought of it as more of a worst case scenario item or a toy, until an officer got ambushed after a nutcase made a fake 911 call and that vehicle was able to go get him out of the line of fire. He died later, but he died in the hospital with his family and not in a gravel driveway soaked in blood. That vehicle was his only chance of survival.
> 
> So we can take what the media has to say about this so-called militarization of police and we can make cracks about it, but those items save lives and equip officers that otherwise would not have what they need. Our tax dollars already paid for this stuff we might as well be using it versus raising taxes to buy a non-military version of the same things. If the military starts offering up shoulder fired rockets, mounted .50 cal machine guns, abrams tanks, or apache helicopters i will join in on the complaining. But right now all we can pretty much get are items most departments already spend your tax dollars on. Department's that can afford it anyway.
> 
> I should also point out that most of the police officers i know from all over the country are conservative, pro-constitution, pro-gun, and pro-liberty. They have no plans to be the jack booted thugs of the us government. They just want to keep the peace and go home a live at the end of their shift. If a government supplied ballistic helmet or even a beretta m9 helps them do those things, then by all means keep the stuff coming.


*^^^ Best post today !!! ^^^*


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

MountainGirl said:


> *^^^ Best post today !!! ^^^*


In your opinion. So what would be the difference between local police and NG/Military then. Same weapons,same clothing,same government in charge. Maybe rules of engagement. Surly not what the founders had in mind I'm sure.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

ekim said:


> In your opinion. So what would be the difference between local police and NG/Military then. Same weapons,same clothing,same government in charge. Maybe rules of engagement. Surly not what the founders had in mind I'm sure.


You seem to be sure about a lot of things you have no clue about.
Feel free to put me on ignore; I'm doing the same to you.
Peace out.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

ekim said:


> In your opinion. So what would be the difference between local police and NG/Military then. Same weapons,same clothing,same government in charge. Maybe rules of engagement. Surly not what the founders had in mind I'm sure.


If you think the police have the same weapons as the military, and I say this without intending offense, you have likely neither been in law enforcement or the military. I shot more hardcore stuff in the 1980's in the Army than my police department will have 20 years from today. Unless you believe the Windham Weaponry semi-auto AR-15 with iron sights is the equivalent of the full-auto Colt/FN M4A1. Plus I have not seen any M67 frag grenades, M72 LAW's, M249 Light Machine Guns, Browning M2's, and so on sitting in our inventory. Also the last time I checked my BDU's have never violated any civil rights or oppressed anyone.


----------



## ekim (Dec 28, 2012)

patrioteer said:


> If you think the police have the same weapons as the military, and I say this without intending offense, you have likely neither been in law enforcement or the military. I shot more hardcore stuff in the 1980's in the Army than my police department will have 20 years from today. Unless you believe the Windham Weaponry semi-auto AR-15 with iron sights is the equivalent of the full-auto Colt/FN M4A1. Plus I have not seen any M67 frag grenades, M72 LAW's, M249 Light Machine Guns, Browning M2's, and so on sitting in our inventory. Also the last time I checked my BDU's have never violated any civil rights or oppressed anyone.


I don't know pruff positive but I guess you know whatevery police department has for weapons across the country, my hats off to you. But I've heard of police departments having full auto weapons, flash bang rounds and tear gas type rounds, all of which where designed for the military first. The FBI and police also used the Thompson .45 MG and the BAR along with he AR 15 style carbine/rifle which where also military weapons.

What you have or have not seen doesn't mean it isn't true or didn't happen. Also true is that what you did in the military doesn't have anything to do with what police departments do or don't use. Just like Mtn. Girl you cant handle an opposing thought or opinion. It's your word and nothing else. So be it, enjoy.


----------



## bigwheel (Sep 22, 2014)

Somebody is smoking funny stuff around here.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

All I know is that the more advanced equipment that law enforcement have opens the door that the possibility exists for tyrannical use.

It's already happening electronically. The gov is spying on the citizens and been proven.

Look on YouTube and your going to see plenty of tyrannical police abusing the public. Excessive force, but the kicker for me is the videos of searching without a warrant. Do you think anything was done to them? I think the brotherhood gave protection.

We're in a police state and people need to recognize it.

I don't hate the police but I have 0 trust.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Chiefster23 (Feb 5, 2016)

ekim said:


> I don't know pruff positive but I guess you know whatevery police department has for weapons across the country, my hats off to you. But I've heard of police departments having full auto weapons, flash bang rounds and tear gas type rounds, all of which where designed for the military first. The FBI and police also used the Thompson .45 MG and the BAR along with he AR 15 style carbine/rifle which where also military weapons.
> 
> What you have or have not seen doesn't mean it isn't true or didn't happen. Also true is that what you did in the military doesn't have anything to do with what police departments do or don't use. Just like Mtn. Girl you cant handle an opposing thought or opinion. It's your word and nothing else. So be it, enjoy.


Do you NOT watch the nightly news? Gang bangers routinely use fully automatic weapons. In many cases the police are ALREADY OUTGUNNED! Please consider what your feelings might be if your child was a police officer in todays world. We have a cop in the family. I'm all for giving them what they need so they go home safely every night.


----------



## jim-henscheli (May 4, 2015)

I’m fine with it, so long as WE have the same equipment!


----------



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

MaterielGeneral said:


> It's already happening electronically. The gov is spying on the citizens and been proven.


http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2018/05...ecognition-tech-enable-mass-surveillance.html

Amazon has been selling a facial-recognition system to police, sparking fears that the technology will one day power mass surveillance.

Last month, an Amazon executive said the system was also being used in Orlando, Florida, to match faces captured by street surveillance cameras to photos uploaded in a database to keep tabs on high-profile individuals, like the mayor, or identify persons of interests.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

patrioteer said:


> Flash forward a bunch of years and we got an armorer vehicle. Even we thought of it as more of a worst case scenario item or a toy, until an officer got ambushed after a nutcase made a fake 911 call and that vehicle was able to go get him out of the line of fire. He died later, but he died in the hospital with his family and not in a gravel driveway soaked in blood. That vehicle was his only chance of survival.


http://www.nbc4i.com/news/u-s-world...ctive-shooter-situation-in-florida/1192675138

"Ford said police officers eventually used an armored vehicle to get to the apartment. Around 2:30 p.m., he said, officers ignited a flash grenade and drove the armored vehicle to break into Holroyd's apartment, and used a robot to search the residence."

There is little doubt the armored vehicle used by law enforcement in Panama City, FL yesterday saved lives... I would say this was a typical scenario when facing a crazy man armed with a high powered rifle. The nut job ambushed police and had local residents pinned down.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Hemi45 (May 5, 2014)

There are valid points made on both sides of the argument. I see it as a necessary evil in response to the accelerated erosion of "the thin veneer" of society. There was no need for todays tools and tactics a couple generations ago when folks largely knew how to behave.


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

Either you TRUST your LOCAL LEO's or ya dont. The TOOLS dont matter.


















Southeast Missouri SWAT Challenge - Home

Madison County MO is in South East Missouri. It is a county of 6000 folks and a county seat (Fredericktown) has a population of around 2k. 
They (Fredericktown) have a Swat Team and EVEN sponsor this "SWAT Challenge" every year where competitors come from as far away as Florida.

Just a bunch of Tools...

The Sheriff I helped get elected doesnt have a damn thing to do with them.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

Smart man, town that size has no business spending tax dollars on that. That is what the state police response team is for.

All the fed agencies have a team, now seems all of the small towns want them.

The city/county near me has a shared SWAT. They make it a group effort and you hardly hear of their use. Surrounding areas rely on the state team.


Malcom Renolds said:


> Either you TRUST your LOCAL LEO's or ya dont. The TOOLS dont matter.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

MaterielGeneral said:


> Smart man, town that size has no business spending tax dollars on that. That is what the state police response team is for.
> 
> All the fed agencies have a team, now seems all of the small towns want them.
> 
> ...


If things ever went really sideways - distinct LEO groups might end up facing each other. Just sayin. 
And you can thank @*stowlin* 's story for that idea:
https://www.minds.com/blog/view/835215603103547392


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

MountainGirl said:


> If things ever went really sideways - distinct LEO groups might end up facing each other. Just sayin.
> And you can thank @*stowlin* 's story for that idea:
> https://www.minds.com/blog/view/835215603103547392


I think your right. Instead of LE role they will be foot soldiers for their community.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

You know how they say when seconds count the police are only minutes away? Indicating that you need to be able to defend and protect yourself. Well when a smaller department is facing a serious incident, state or federal tactical teams are usually hours away. So the same way you should train and equip to protect yourself, police officers sometimes need to train and equip to protect themselves and their communities. In my community the closest real deal tactical team is an hour away if every member is on duty and ready to run out the door. Much longer if they have to be called in. That's a long time if bullets are flying and people are dying. So we send everyone through some high risk tactical training and provide the minimum gear needed so we can either resolve the incident or hold out until the next team arrives. We do this in cooperation with the Sheriff's department and other nearby agencies as a cooperative effort. Now we have never had a columbine or pulse night club like event. But you prepare for the worst and hope for the best.

And just for consideration, my first chief had been on the job for almost 40 years when I started. He used to tell stories about getting a wooden crate of 45 tommy guns for free from uncle sam after WWII/Korea. And that they had a rack of them in the department and pulled them out every time things went sideways. That would have been in the late 50's and 60's. He once turned a van into swiss cheese when it failed to stop for a road block. No one in the community seemed to be the least bit concerned by the PD having these guns. And the PD of those days was much rougher, had fewer restrictions, little oversight and no background or psych checks.


----------



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

MountainGirl said:


> If things ever went really sideways - distinct LEO groups might end up facing each other. Just sayin.


Such as an extremely left minded police chief and half of his dedicated and like minded police force vs the right leaning sheriff and most of his further right minded deputies...

It's a real possibility! I can think of many scenarios that would ignite such a conflict. Todays political division has everyone primed and ready...

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

patrioteer said:


> You know how they say when seconds count the police are only minutes away?


I often listen to local LE on a scanner. It's not unusual for an LEO to arrive on scene ten to fifteen minutes after being dispatched. This includes dire situations. Many times a single police officer in one of the very small towns answers the call first and has to leave his JD to do so. Sometimes they refuse to leave their JD. The sheriff deputy on duty is usually on the other side of the county (Murphy's law). State patrol units are usually in a neighboring county and on occasion two counties away.

Around here you'd better be able to hold your own, because a few minutes is really quite a few minutes...

The ambulance/rescue service response times are even worse. Some situations are heartbreaking to listen to.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

MountainGirl said:


> If things ever went really sideways - distinct LEO groups might end up facing each other. Just sayin.


I think this could happen in the future, but if it does it will likely be federal law enforcement versus local law enforcement. I know a lot of Sheriffs that are saying they will not permit gun confiscations or anti-constitutional activities in their counties. And in the grand hierarchy of law enforcement an elected Sheriff holds a lot more power than an appointed police chief, state police, or federal agents.

In the event of a world without rule of law, I think local agencies would just combine to defend their communities. Of course I am referring to small cities and towns not major metro areas. Those we will be a complete free for all.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

You can militarize the police or not. I guarantee you, you will still find cops that have tyrannical tendencies. So the question is how do we fix that.... You can compare this with gun control. Guns being restricted because bad guys use them to commit crimes.... Not fair right.

I'm an honest cop, and you won't be incorrect if you said I am militarized. I do this to survive, not to violate "we the people". And don't worry, in my department I maybe the only one. I work for a liberal city who would never fund it's police properly let alone get us good equipment. This is where we were told not to wear riot helmets during the riots because we looked intimidating with the helmets on


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

6811 said:


> I'm an honest cop, and you won't be incorrect if you said I am militarized. I do this to survive, not to violate "we the people". And don't worry, in my department I maybe the only one. I work for a liberal city who would never fund it's police properly let alone get us good equipment. This is where we were told not to wear riot helmets during the riots because we looked intimidating with the helmets on


So stupid.

I live in a conservative area but that does not stop the liberals from showing up from time to time. In fact not so many years ago a coworker of mine caught a complaint from a city council woman because he was wearing sunglasses on a bright summers day. In her opinion he was only wearing them to be intimidating to her and she she demanded a policy be written forbidding the use of sunglasses. The chief told her to blow it up her skirt. Thankfully she lost the next election.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Gator Monroe said:


> I want police to be able to perform ICE / Customs BP roles too ( And augment the NG / Military if it all boils over too


In other words, you have no objections to a militarized police force.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

KUSA said:


> I doubt the founding fathers would have wanted anyone to possess nukes. They were not war mongers.


????????? This country was born out of defiance to the tyranny of King George. When it comes to Liberty, all of us should be "_war mongers_." Don't allow emotion laden buzz words dissuade from standing up for what is right.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

patrioteer said:


> So stupid.
> 
> I live in a conservative area but that does not stop the liberals from showing up from time to time. In fact not so many years ago a coworker of mine caught a complaint from a city council woman because he was wearing sunglasses on a bright summers day. In her opinion he was only wearing them to be intimidating to her and she she demanded a policy be written forbidding the use of sunglasses. The chief told her to blow it up her skirt. Thankfully she lost the next election.


That's not surprising...


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

6811 said:


> You can militarize the police or not. I guarantee you, you will still find cops that have tyrannical tendencies. So the question is how do we fix that.... You can compare this with gun control. Guns being restricted because bad guys use them to commit crimes.... Not fair right.
> 
> I'm an honest cop, and you won't be incorrect if you said I am militarized. I do this to survive, not to violate "we the people". And don't worry, in my department I maybe the only one. I work for a liberal city who would never fund it's police properly let alone get us good equipment. This is where we were told not to wear riot helmets during the riots because we looked intimidating with the helmets on


How do you fix it? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the *Right of the people* shall not be infringed

You could get the government out of the legal drug business and stop them from creating a drug addict society so we don't have to have this conversation...


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

I actually think we are talking about two different things.

As I stated, I carry a 1911, a pistol used by soldiers in WWII, Korea and Vietnam. The pistol is an implement, like a door-stop.

The other issue is a "military mindset." Yes, there are some police officers that wear BDUs and think they are shock troops. Fortunately, we don't have their kind here.

There is also a regional slant. I remember the days of the "cocaine cowboys" in Florida. A friend of mine applying for the Madison police department informed me that an associate of his landed a job in Florida. He said his friend never put on the traditional police uniform, he would suit up daily in body armor. His entire day was kicking in doors and seizing drugs and guns.

Clearly, that doesn't happen in my area. However, my birthplace of Milwaukee has now surpassed Chicago with gangland murders. My guess is that there has been an uptick in armored cars, body armor and black rifles there.


----------



## KUSA (Apr 21, 2016)

The Resister said:


> ????????? This country was born out of defiance to the tyranny of King George. When it comes to Liberty, all of us should be "_war mongers_." Don't allow emotion laden buzz words dissuade from standing up for what is right.


Being prepared and ready for war and being a war monger ar not the same thing.

Definition of warmonger: one who urges or attempts to stir up war.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

patrioteer said:


> I am going to weigh in this topic as an LEO who has some military gear from uncle sam. I work for a small department with only 35 or so officers. There was a time when if you wanted body armor, you had to buy it yourself. The government then started making surplus US Army MP vests available and we grabbed up a pile of them. The only reason I had armor for my first 2-3 years on the job was because of these programs. We were issued a handgun and a shotgun, but that was it. Then using the same military surplus program we were able to put some M14's in our vehicles. I never had to take a human life with one but there was more than once I was damn glad to have 20 rounds of 7.62x51 in my hands versus 15 shots of 9mm. Even our riot gear came from the military. Flash forward a bunch of years and we got an armorer vehicle. Even we thought of it as more of a worst case scenario item or a toy, until an officer got ambushed after a nutcase made a fake 911 call and that vehicle was able to go get him out of the line of fire. He died later, but he died in the hospital with his family and not in a gravel driveway soaked in blood. That vehicle was his only chance of survival.
> 
> So we can take what the media has to say about this so-called militarization of police and we can make cracks about it, but those items save lives and equip officers that otherwise would not have what they need. Our tax dollars already paid for this stuff we might as well be using it versus raising taxes to buy a non-military version of the same things. If the military starts offering up shoulder fired rockets, mounted .50 cal machine guns, Abrams tanks, or Apache helicopters I will join in on the complaining. But right now all we can pretty much get are items most departments already spend your tax dollars on. Department's that can afford it anyway.
> 
> I should also point out that most of the police officers I know from all over the country are conservative, pro-constitution, pro-gun, and pro-liberty. They have no plans to be the jack booted thugs of the US Government. They just want to keep the peace and go home a live at the end of their shift. If a government supplied ballistic helmet or even a Beretta M9 helps them do those things, then by all means keep the stuff coming.


This pretty much covers my feelings on the subject. While there is always a potential for abuse I would never want LEO to be outgunned. With the bad guys having more firepower then LEO to begin with you guys are left sucking hind tit. While I have to admit to softening my stance somewhat on this subject over the last couple of years, you will forgive me if I keep an eye out for those 50 Cal's and Abrams tanks. :tango_face_grin:


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

KUSA said:


> Being prepared and ready for war and being a war monger ar not the same thing.
> 
> Definition of warmonger: one who urges or attempts to stir up war.


Unfortunately, in our society, one who urges people to ignore unconstitutional laws would be considered a domestic terrorist, enemy combatant and even a war monger. Seldom do we use the correct definition of a word when trying to sway people politically.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

The Resister said:


> How do you fix it? A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the *Right of the people* shall not be infringed
> 
> You could get the government out of the legal drug business and stop them from creating a drug addict society so we don't have to have this conversation...


I'm not too sure I understand your response to my post. But one thing I could think of to effect change is to monitor police academy. Make sure these cops know exactly what they swore to protect and defend. I can tell you, I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution twice. Once when I joined the US military and the 2nd time when I got sworn in as police. I am ashamed to say that I did not have a clue what I swore to. I had to do my own research and learning about the Constitution. But once I understood, I fell in love with it. America is the greatest country in the world because of it. I can assure you, giving me access to machine gun, tanks, IFAK and riot helmet will not change my love for the Constitution.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

6811 said:


> I'm not to sure I understand your response to my post. But one thing I could think of to effect change is to monitor police academy. Make sure these cops know exactly what they swore to protect and defend. I can tell you, I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution twice. Once when I joined the US military and the 2nd time when I got sworn in as police. I am ashamed to say that I did not have a clue what I swore to. I had to do my own research and learning about the Constitution. But once I understood, I fell in love with it. America is the greatest country in the world because of it. I can assure you, giving me access to machine gun, tanks, IFAK and riot helmet will not change my love for the Constitution.


When I attended the police academy we had a class in constitutional law where we had to learn all of the amendments and various elements of them. It was a two day course. The next class was criminal law and prosecution. That course was at least 10 days long. So while there definitely could have been more focus on the constitution, we did get some training on it. Of course it also came up in other courses included criminal procedure.

The modern day police academy is almost twice as long and it seems like they teach half as much. Feels like they learn more in FTO than at the academy. The extra weeks are filled with feel-good stuff and alternative methods of policing. So basically pointless. Plus they have to do stuff like journaling and community oriented projects.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

patrioteer said:


> When I attended the police academy we had a class in constitutional law where we had to learn all of the amendments and various elements of them. It was a two day course. The next class was criminal law and prosecution. That course was at least 10 days long. So while there definitely could have been more focus on the constitution, we did get some training on it. Of course it also came up in other courses included criminal procedure.
> 
> The modern day police academy is almost twice as long and it seems like they teach half as much. Feels like they learn more in FTO than at the academy. The extra weeks are filled with feel-good stuff and alternative methods of policing. So basically pointless. Plus they have to do stuff like journaling and community oriented projects.


My academy was 7 months long and mine was somewhat similar to yours. We had a police instructor (sworn active police) who also teaches Constitution in a law school teach my class law and the US Constitution. Almost everyday we chatted about my experience growing up under martial law in a country ruled by a tyrant.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

6811 said:


> My academy was 7 months long and mine was somewhat similar to yours. We had a police instructor (sworn active police) who also teaches Constitution in a law school teach my class law and the US Constitution. Almost everyday we chatted about my experience growing up under martial law in a country ruled by a tyrant.


Now that you peaked everyone's interest, please go on.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

6811 said:


> I'm not too sure I understand your response to my post. But one thing I could think of to effect change is to monitor police academy. Make sure these cops know exactly what they swore to protect and defend. I can tell you, I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution twice. Once when I joined the US military and the 2nd time when I got sworn in as police. I am ashamed to say that I did not have a clue what I swore to. I had to do my own research and learning about the Constitution. But once I understood, I fell in love with it. America is the greatest country in the world because of it. I can assure you, giving me access to machine gun, tanks, IFAK and riot helmet will not change my love for the Constitution.


I would say that 99 percent of the American people don't know which Constitution they swore an oath to. There are at least* two* completely different governments operating in the United States. Even the best of cops don't know which America they owe their allegiance to.

The first government you have is a de jure / legal / lawful constitutional Republic as guaranteed under Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution. The next government you have (the one that currently operates) is a de facto / illegal Federal / Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations. That government is in complete opposition to the de jure constitutional Republic. For example, the Declaration of Independence states that:

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable* Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."

Of this document, Thomas Jefferson (the very author) said:

"_The Declaration of Independence... [is the] declaratory charter of our Rights, and of the rights of man_."

Bear in mind that a certain faction of would be Americans refused to support the Constitution until a *Bill of Rights* was added to the Constitution in order to protect Liberty. The Bill of Rights was supposed to safeguard Liberty; to codify the declaratory charter of our Rights. All of the *earliest *Court decisions confirmed that some Rights are *unalienable*. The Second Amendment was one of those. For example, the *earliest* state court decisions *ruled* the following way on the Constitution:

"_But to be in conflict with the constitution, it is not essential that the act should contain a prohibition against bearing arms in every possible form-it is the right to bear arms in defence of the citizens and the state, that is secured by the constitution, and whatever restrains the full and complete exercise of that right, though not an entire destruction of it, is forbidden by the explicit language of the constitution. If, therefore, the act in question imposes any restraint on the right, immaterial what appellation may be given to the act, whether it be an act regulating the manner of bearing arms or any other, the consequence, in reference to the constitution, is precisely the same, and its collision with that instrument equally obvious. ... *The right existed at the adoption of the constitution; it had then no limits short of the moral power of the citizens to exercise it, and it in fact consisted in nothing else but in the liberty of the citizens to bear arms. Diminish that liberty, therefore, and you necessarily restrain the right*; ... For, in principle, there is no difference between a law prohibiting the wearing [of] concealed arms, and a law forbidding the wearing such as are exposed; and if the former is unconstitutional, the latter must be so likewise_."

Source:	Bliss v. Commonwealth, 12 KY. (2 LITT.) 90 (Kentucky 1822)

In my own home state, they ruled as well on the Second Amendment:

"_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_

Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

Our "own Magna Charta" would be the Declaration of Independence. That document established the principle of *unalienable* Rights.

The state of Texas weighed in a little later, They ruled:

"_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute*. He does not derive it from the State government. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because *it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."

Cockrum v State 24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

Are you beginning to see that theme regarding *unalienable and absolute* / shall not be infringed where the Right is above the lawmaking power? Finally, let us see how the *earliest United States Supreme Court* decision saw this issue:

"_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence_.

United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Today we are allowing the Courts to destroy the Constitution and while they have the *power* to do so, they lack the *authority*. In the Heller decision, the United States Supreme Court ruled:

"_Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

WTH??? Like most rights (sic)??? Okay, which Rights are unlimited? Under our de jure / lawful constitutional Republic, the Bill of Rights is THE limitation on the government. Yet, the illegal system we have today claims that there are no *unalienable* Rights. You don't have a Right to Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Expression. Try what Bruce Willis did in the movie Die Hard With a Vengeance and you'll see what I mean. Freedom of Religion? No, the courts will decide what you can and cannot teach your children. Right to keep and bear Arms???

We don't have to wait for a SHTF scenario. The courts are illegally and unconstitutionally legislating from the bench and changing the laws. It is the equivalent of a door to door, search / seizure and confiscation of anything and everything. So, exactly, *which* government do you owe your allegiance to?


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

The Resister said:


> So, exactly, *which* government do you owe your allegiance to?


My allegiance is to the government of the people, by the people, for the people.



> I do solemnly swear that I will be alert and vigilant to enforce the criminal laws of this State, to preserve the peace, to provide for the public safety, to protect civil liberties, and to uphold the US Constitution and the Constitution of this State; that I will not be influenced in any matter on account of personal bias or prejudice; that I will faithfully and impartially execute the duties of my office as a law enforcement officer according to the best of my skill, abilities, and judgment; so help me, God.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

patrioteer said:


> My allegiance is to the government of the people, by the people, for the people.


That still don't answer *which one*... unless you are taking the view that government grants "_civil liberties._"


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

The Resister said:


> That still don't answer *which one*... unless you are taking the view that government grants "_civil liberties._"


I am confused as to why you think police officers have to swear an allegiance to a government? The government is just a system of organizational management. Peace, public safety, and civil liberties are about people not government. Nowhere in my oath does it say city government, state government, or federal government. And by the way God grants civil liberties. And God is in my oath.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

patrioteer said:


> I am confused as to why you think police officers have to swear an allegiance to a government? The government is just a system of organizational management. Peace, public safety, and civil liberties are about people not government. Nowhere in my oath does it say city government, state government, or federal government. And by the way God grants civil liberties. And God is in my oath.


God grants *unalienable *Rights (i.e. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness being among them.) The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Right to Life. That was the point of quoting the earliest court decisions on the subject. What has happened is that the Executive and Judicial branches of government have used their *power* to infringe upon the *unalienable* Rights of all.

People who work for the government and enforce its laws have to pick whether they are on the side of the Constitution OR the side of the illegal government that pays them their paycheck. Some people are more concerned about the paycheck than the Constitution. Consequently, they will enforce unconstitutional laws simply because the system says "it's the law." It's one thing to talk about what you believe in; quite another to practice it. The *United States Supreme Court* opined:

_"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted. Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

*No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it*_*."
*
- Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

But here is real problem:

What do you do when it is the United States Supreme Court taking a giant dump on the Constitution? Well, it's the law - or so they say. The liberals and cowards will then say, you can't take the law into your own hands and unilaterally decide what laws you will and will not obey. To that, my response is a simple one:

"_On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_." Thomas Jefferson

"_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_." George Washington in his Farewell Address

The United States Supreme Court gets to *interpret *the law. Okay, great. They interpreted the law. Where, in the Constitution, does the authority extend to *reinterpreting* the law? So, which law do you enforce / obey? Do you enforce the laws as they were originally written and intended *OR* do you enforce / obey the current illegal / de facto laws on the books? Most gun laws are constitutionally unenforceable since the Right is *unalienable* -

You can't do both. And if you obey the de facto / illegal laws today, you cannot morally or legally refuse to enforce / obey unconstitutional laws in the future. You absolutely cannot ask the government for a gun permit and later challenge the laws that prohibit you from carrying one. Once you forfeit your Rights, they are GONE. And if you enforce unconstitutional laws now, I'm only saying you serve who you serve.

"_No man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon_." Matthew 6: 24

Sir, I cannot judge you; I can only point out the dilemma and ask you which of those two governments do you choose be loyal to. It's a rhetorical question of which you do not have to answer publicly. You answer it privately, in prayer, and do what it is right. You don't have to guess what side I'm on.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> God grants *unalienable *Rights (i.e. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness being among them.) The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Right to Life. That was the point of quoting the earliest court decisions on the subject. What has happened is that the Executive and Judicial branches of government have used their *power* to infringe upon the *unalienable* Rights of all.
> 
> People who work for the government and enforce its laws have to pick whether they are on the side of the Constitution OR the side of the illegal government that pays them their paycheck. Some people are more concerned about the paycheck than the Constitution. Consequently, they will enforce unconstitutional laws simply because the system says "it's the law." It's one thing to talk about what you believe in; quite another to practice it. The *United States Supreme Court* opined:
> 
> ...


I have tried to point out this point in the past and did it no justice. This post, on the other hand, is perfect.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> I have tried to point out this point in the past and did it no justice. This post, on the other hand, is perfect.


Your vote of confidence is most appreciated. Now, we have two people saying the same thing.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

The Resister said:


> God grants *unalienable *Rights (i.e. Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness being among them.) The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Right to Life. That was the point of quoting the earliest court decisions on the subject. What has happened is that the Executive and Judicial branches of government have used their *power* to infringe upon the *unalienable* Rights of all.
> 
> People who work for the government and enforce its laws have to pick whether they are on the side of the Constitution OR the side of the illegal government that pays them their paycheck. Some people are more concerned about the paycheck than the Constitution. Consequently, they will enforce unconstitutional laws simply because the system says "it's the law." It's one thing to talk about what you believe in; quite another to practice it. The *United States Supreme Court* opined:
> 
> ...


How about you condense that down to me to the ultra abridged edition. Still not sure why you think I have to swear an allegiance to a government.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

The Resister said:


> Your vote of confidence is most appreciated. Now, we have two people saying the same thing.


There's a reason I bailed on criminal justice, including a B.A. while only being three classes short of graduating. There were contradictions that bothered me.

For example, why was I expected to make contact with a citizen over a misdemeanor without the injured party first writing an affidavit, swearing to it, and a warrant being issued by a judge?
If I swore an oath to uphold and protect the constitution, why was i also expected to enforce uniform commercial codes on travelers who were not engaged in commercial activity (traffic tickets)? If the 2nd Amendment clearly states that keeping and bearing arms is a God-given right that shall not be infringed, why was I expected to arrest people who violated statutes that were in violation of the constitution?

Dropping out of the system was a personal choice. I applaud those who do work in the criminal justice system while endeavoring to not violate the rights of the citizens. As a matter of fact, I'll be dropping off a box of lemon/almond paleo cookies for the guys on second shift before I go to work. I already dropped off cookies for 3rd shift, as I have a special place in my heart for them. I spent a lot of time on 2nd shift. That's when the crazies come out to play.

Here's the thing. I went to college for CJ. I went to the academy. I know what the cops are taught. I know the "constitutional law" classes are specifially tailored and are about court cases such as the Silver Platter Doctrine, Miranda, etc. Even if "they" wanted LE/CJ folks educated on the constitution, it'd take more than a couple days at the academy or a couple classes in college to properly inform the officers. Cops need to educate themselves. When something doesn't look or feel right as judged by what they know in their hearts, they should start digging. It'll take them on a journey through the foundation of this nation and back even farther. It'll be a journey they'll enjoy.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

> "On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." Thomas Jefferson


In a nut shell! The courts, and particularly, the Supreme Court, insist that the constitution is a living, breathing document to be weighed against current circumstances. It is not.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

patrioteer said:


> How about you condense that down to me to the ultra abridged edition. Still not sure why you think I have to swear an allegiance to a government.


While you didn't swear allegiance to the government, you are serving two masters, and the expectations of those two masters are at odds in many instances.

Resister offered you an extremely abridged edition. Take a couple minutes to read and contemplate it.


----------



## MikeTango (Apr 13, 2018)

Prepared One said:


> In a nut shell! The courts, and particularly, the Supreme Court, insist that the constitution is a living, breathing document to be weighed against current circumstances. It is not.


That's the excuse they use to legislate from the bench!

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Malcom Renolds (Jul 14, 2017)

> Limit the jurisdiction of Supreme Court. Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 of the Constitution explicitly grants Congress the authority to regulate and limit the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. This is plenary power and a complete remedy. The notion that Anthony Kennedy can redefine marriage and sexuality or grant citizen rights to illegal aliens or Somali Islamists and that there is nothing Congress can do to stop him is simply ignorant. As I note in Chapter 9 of my book, even John Marshall agreed the high court has no jurisdiction other than what Congress grants it (except for the few spheres of original jurisdiction established in Article III).
> 
> While Congress must respect any existing judgement granted to a particular plaintiff in a particular case, the legislative branch has the full authority to cut the legs out from under the decision by preventing it from becoming precedent prospectively. As Clarence Thomas said in a recent case, "When Congress strips federal courts of jurisdiction, it exercises a valid legislative power no less than when it lays taxes, coins money, declares war, or invokes any other power that the Constitution grants it."


The "problem" lies with Congress NOT exercising its Constitutional power.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/10-ways-reclaim-stolen-power-courts/










NO COURT has the power to "legislate" from the bench.


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Prepared One said:


> In a nut shell! The courts, and particularly, the Supreme Court, insist that the constitution is a living, breathing document to be weighed against current circumstances. It is not.


I always thought it should be, literally and figuratively, carved in stone. Gets the idea across...


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

patrioteer said:


> How about you condense that down to me to the ultra abridged edition. Still not sure why you think I have to swear an allegiance to a government.


Can you recite the Pledge of Allegiance and *mean* it?

What I gave you is the abridged version of the abridged version. The real version took me years of studying law and then applying it before it all made sense. It goes against what most were programmed to believe.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Malcom Renolds said:


> The "problem" lies with Congress NOT exercising its Constitutional power.
> 
> https://www.conservativereview.com/news/10-ways-reclaim-stolen-power-courts/
> 
> ...


That is the point I keep trying to make - though it takes me a thousand words to explain how they're doing it.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

Denton said:


> While you didn't swear allegiance to the government, you are serving two masters, and the expectations of those two masters are at odds in many instances.
> 
> Resister offered you an extremely abridged edition. Take a couple minutes to read and contemplate it.


It is clear that you both feel that way and more power to ya. Another great thing about this country is we are all entitled to our opinions. I have been wearing this badge for 26 years and I am very comfortable with the job I do, the people I serve, and the system I operate under. It is not perfect but no system is. I know why I put that badge on in the morning and what has to happen for me to take it off. As far as the greater sociopolitical contentions and contrary bureaucratic frameworks of government, I will leave that up to the philosophers and the theorists.


----------



## 6811 (Jan 2, 2013)

The Resister said:


> I would say that 99 percent of the American people don't know which Constitution they swore an oath to. There are at least* two* completely different governments operating in the United States. Even the best of cops don't know which America they owe their allegiance to.
> 
> The first government you have is a de jure / legal / lawful constitutional Republic as guaranteed under Article IV Section 4 of the United States Constitution. The next government you have (the one that currently operates) is a de facto / illegal Federal / Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations. That government is in complete opposition to the de jure constitutional Republic. For example, the Declaration of Independence states that:
> 
> ...


My allegiance is to the rightful Government of the United States of America.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

patrioteer said:


> It is clear that you both feel that way and more power to ya. Another great thing about this country is we are all entitled to our opinions. I have been wearing this badge for 26 years and I am very comfortable with the job I do, the people I serve, and the system I operate under. It is not perfect but no system is. I know why I put that badge on in the morning and what has to happen for me to take it off. As far as the greater sociopolitical contentions and contrary bureaucratic frameworks of government, I will leave that up to the philosophers and the theorists.


Don't confuse _feeling_ with _knowledge_. I know what you've been taught as an LEO. I was taught it, too.
I'm not talking philosophers or theorists. I'm not talking about how many years you've been on the job or how comfortable you are in doing it. As a matter of fact, I don't know how you do your job., but I can tell you what we are talking about has nothing to do with bureacracy or theory, and let's not muddy the water by suggesting it is. It is not.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

Denton said:


> Don't confuse _feeling_ with _knowledge_. I know what you've been taught as an LEO. I was taught it, too.
> I'm not talking philosophers or theorists. I'm not talking about how many years you've been on the job or how comfortable you are in doing it. As a matter of fact, I don't know how you do your job., but I can tell you what we are talking about has nothing to do with bureacracy or theory, and let's not muddy the water by suggesting it is. It is not.


Unless I'm missing the point, the patrioteer is concerned with semantics. It's easy to mistake the discussion when the OP opens with the question of asking if the LEOs should have military equipment. The society we're headed toward is an absolute *POLICE STATE*. People on both the left and the right have items in their agenda to push us toward that end.

Knowing where your head is at - really at - takes a lot of bravery to do and a lot of self introspection to admit where it is you stand. The bulk of society has been programmed to think we live in a Democracy and a majority vote can strip you of your *unalienable* Rights and / or that a law a LEO is aware of must be enforced as if it were the laws of God. I have to look at what the LEO community says (and a lot of LEOs work for someone in authority that believes what I'm about to share with you.) This is from a recent news article:

"..._two South Florida police chiefs share the up-close and personal horrors of overseeing mass shooting investigations that have reinforced their beliefs about gun control:_

"_First, they want military-style weapons like AR-15 rifles, the weapon used in both events, out of the hands of civilians_."

Florida police chiefs want stricter gun laws and assault weapons banned | Miami Herald

Those kinds of people are traitors; they are utterly ignorant regarding the Constitution - especially *unalienable* Rights. They are a threat and a menace to a free society. And, now we're discussing whether or not LEOs should have military gear that is more suitable to conventional warfare than to law enforcement. It's kind of ironic. I'm not advocating for infringing on their Rights, so they shouldn't be advocating taking away my Rights. Those kinds of LEOs are on the side of the de facto / illegal government that cannot figure out how to reduce gun violence without gun control. So, being both ignorant and uneducated, they want to take us further and further from our foundational principles.

BTW, I *could *stop most mass shootings *without* gun control.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

Denton said:


> Don't confuse _feeling_ with _knowledge_. I know what you've been taught as an LEO. I was taught it, too.
> I'm not talking philosophers or theorists. I'm not talking about how many years you've been on the job or how comfortable you are in doing it. As a matter of fact, I don't know how you do your job., but I can tell you what we are talking about has nothing to do with bureacracy or theory, and let's not muddy the water by suggesting it is. It is not.


Since I am not really concerned about winning any internet debates, and have already expressed my opinions on the subject matter of this thread, I will just concede to your knowledge and non-theories and move on.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

patrioteer said:


> Since I am not really concerned about winning any internet debates, and have already expressed my opinions on the subject matter of this thread, I will just concede to your knowledge and non-theories and move on.


patrioteer, This discussion is *not* about winning any Internet debate. Please don't think of this as a contest. You have an opinion and it's simply being tested. I honestly believe that you want to do what is right for you, your family and your country. There is not a doubt in my mind that Denton will support that sentiment.

My hope is that you and others on this thread really think about *which* Constitution they are defending. All that we are hoping for is that you think about it and (if you happen to be a believer) pray about this.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

The Resister said:


> patrioteer, This discussion is *not* about winning any Internet debate. Please don't think of this as a contest. You have an opinion and it's simply being tested. I honestly believe that you want to do what is right for you, your family and your country. There is not a doubt in my mind that Denton will support that sentiment.
> 
> My hope is that you and others on this thread really think about *which* Constitution they are defending. All that we are hoping for is that you think about it and (if you happen to be a believer) pray about this.


Resister, I understand your position, and happen to be in full agreement on this. You have laid out this case well.

That said, what *realistic* thing do you believe can be done to change the situation? That constitutional water is so far under the bridge it's not even the same river anymore.

Anything short of a nation-wide reverting or return would be ineffective and the odds against that happening are astronomical. So...other than rant, rave and spread the word (which might feel good but is little more then mental masturbation) - or a nation-wide revolution - exactly what do you propose that would be realistically effective, in the here and now?


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

MountainGirl said:


> Resister, I understand your position, and happen to be in full agreement on this. You have laid out this case well.
> 
> That said, what *realistic* thing do you believe can be done to change the situation? That constitutional water is so far under the bridge it's not even the same river anymore.
> 
> Anything short of a nation-wide reverting or return would be ineffective and the odds against that happening are astronomical. So...other than rant, rave and spread the word (which might feel good but is little more then mental masturbation) - or a nation-wide revolution - exactly what do you propose that would be realistically effective, in the here and now?


I'll take it a step further with the words of John Adams (click here to read the letter he wrote to the Massachusetts militia). Without a nationwide revival and return to Chrstian ethics, morals and principles, how could we go back to constitutional law enforcement?
Smaller, tighter communities would have little problem. On the other hand, imagine Baltimorenot policed proactively.


----------



## patrioteer (May 21, 2018)

Denton said:


> I'll take it a step further with the words of John Adams (click here to read the letter he wrote to the Massachusetts militia). Without a nationwide revival and return to Chrstian ethics, morals and principles, how could we go back to constitutional law enforcement?
> Smaller, tighter communities would have little problem. On the other hand, imagine Baltimorenot policed proactively.


Good point. Over my career I have seen a clear decline in christian ethics, morals, and values with a commensurate increase in social disorder, crime, deviance, and overall apathy towards others. That is not to say by simply declaring yourself a christian you somehow behave better, but communities of believers create a sort of familial and social pressure to monitor and improve your behavior, even if only your outward or public behavior. Perhaps the on going lack of moral standards, direction, and sense of fellowship and community has at least contributed to the changing direction of government.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MountainGirl said:


> Resister, I understand your position, and happen to be in full agreement on this. You have laid out this case well.
> 
> That said, what *realistic* thing do you believe can be done to change the situation? That constitutional water is so far under the bridge it's not even the same river anymore.
> 
> Anything short of a nation-wide reverting or return would be ineffective and the odds against that happening are astronomical. So...other than rant, rave and spread the word (which might feel good but is little more then mental masturbation) - or a nation-wide revolution - exactly what do you propose that would be realistically effective, in the here and now?


Most of the time you lose people when you tell them the truth, but you sound like you can handle it. America was founded as a constitutional Republic based upon Christian principles. Today we are a Federal / Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations. Our unofficial state religion is secular humanism. Worst of all, we are* not* going to reclaim America as our forefathers envisioned it.

In 1775 John Adams wrote a letter to Abigail Adams. I'd like to share his observation with you:

"_But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it_."

Sadly, that is where America sits and asking some posters to tell you which Constitution they are supporting is more of a way of telling them that the America we thought existed is no longer. Some posters know that and they choose to play semantics because it is more comfortable than telling you that the America built upon the concept of Liberty being an *unalienable* Right (aka God given, inherent, natural, absolute) no longer exists. The powers that be allow us to live in the delusion. While we were waiting on Armageddon, the SHTF and we slept through it. So, what do I propose?

You, your family, your neighbors, and then anyone you know should be having this uncomfortable discussion. And, like our forefathers, we have to ask ourselves the most obvious question. When does tyranny become tyranny? In the book, _The Light and the Glory_, by Peter Marshall and David Manuel, they recount the founders addressing this very issue:

"_When does tyranny become tyranny? Is there a time when it is not only morally correct but the will of God for one to resist legally constituted authority? When does the "Lord's Anointed" lose his anointing? When did it become God's will for America to throw off the yoke of Britain? 
was it God's will at all?

Of all the questions we faced, this last was the one we dreaded the most. For a strong case could be made against America's ever coming out from under the mother country's authority. If God did intend this land to be a new Israel, then each major step in the implementation of this plan would have to conform to His righteousness. A holy end, no matter how sublime, no matter how sublime, could ever justify unholy means.

The more we debated this, the more mired down we became. So, we prayed to be shown the way out of this mental swamp. And that morning in Florida, in which we had been unable to discern the true nature of the Puritans call, the Holy Spirit went on to show us why America *had* to resist - and why, for them to do anything less would have been the greatest disobedience. This part of the revelation began with a revelation began with a verse of Scripture coming to Peter's mind, which when we looked it up, was Galatians 5: 1, and which proved to be the key to all that followed:

For Freedom, Christ has set us free; stand fast, therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery_." (page 254)

My personal view is that the *Bill of Rights* codified the foundational principles in the Declaration of Independence (which Jefferson says was the declaratory charter of the rights of man.) So, when I witness to you on these boards, you have an idea of where I draw the line with government. The federal government guarantees to us those Rights are forefathers fought, bled and died in order to secure for us. So, now we must hold the government's feet to the fire. We have to demand that they acknowledge *unalienable* Rights and stand down.

Unfortunately, before we're ready to do that we must come together and define what Liberty is. For you have people saying they believe in Liberty, but have no use for the foundational principles upon which this nation was founded. We have to be in agreement as to what it is we're fighting for. Then, we hold the government accountable. Predictably, they will tell the masses what a bunch of fruit loops those patriots are. Freedom and Liberty won't come about for free.

Once we are in agreement as to what our Rights are, we must exhaust *all* of our nonviolent political and legal avenues of redress. You will be required to use passive resistance, lobbying politicians, voting, using your jury vote to nullify bad laws, becoming self sufficient and self reliant. We have to build a community inside a community in order to effectively employ civil disobedience. At the same time we have to listen to those before us:

"_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people_!" Patrick Henry


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

That idea works when you have thinking people as a populous. We do not.

For example, the libtards are not just angered/scared by guns, Trump and having to find work. They are also afraid of everything they do not understand nor do research.

Last year our governor decriminalized switchblade knives. You have no idea how many times I thought about answering, _"It's the blade, not the handle stupid."_

But the editorial section had the same arguments that the NRA gets. For example, "No one needs a knife like that.' The fact that the government didn't want to pass the law to begin with, but in 1958, a representative made a big deal out of safety by pointing his finger at switchblades.

The left still uses that tactic now on anything it doesn't like.

BTW, switchblades were invented around 1830 for women who did needlepoint. They could hold onto their work, and open a knife for trimming thread with one hand. Everything old is new again.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Looking for your direct answer to my question of what can realistically be done, I found this:



The Resister said:


> Most of the time you lose people when you tell them the truth, but you sound like you can handle it. America was founded as a constitutional Republic based upon Christian principles. Today we are a Federal / Legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations. Our unofficial state religion is secular humanism. Worst of all, we are* not* going to reclaim America as our forefathers envisioned it.
> 
> In 1775 John Adams wrote a letter to Abigail Adams. I'd like to share his observation with you:
> 
> ...


 (all formatting mine)

The *we *that would be required would need to be *nation-wide* for any efficacy and is about as likely to happen as @*Denton* said _"... a nationwide revival and return to Chrstian ethics, morals and principles,.."

_ 
In other words...

I applaud your passion and efforts.

But as far as reality goes "..*"So, when I witness to you on these boards,..."* mental masturbation it is.

Thanks for your reply and Best wishes.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MountainGirl said:


> Looking for your direct answer to my question of what can realistically be done, I found this:
> 
> (all formatting mine)
> 
> ...


Hardly. I am currently working on a degree in Christian Education. My ministry will officially launch the moment my degree is in my hand.

At the current time I'm working with legislators and have written a bill that is gaining traction and may get introduced when the Georgia legislature convenes next year. It is a prison reform bill that would do away with shortening the sentences of inmates. They would *earn* their time off by getting a GED, finishing substance abuse programs (if applicable) and learning life skills (how to get an apartment or home, getting credit, interview for a job, balance their checkbook, etc.) AND, once out, they would be in a half way house until they get a job and a place to stay.

I'm trying my best to get some help building a podcast wherein we can talk, in depth, about these issues.

I try to provide small jobs to those who are locked out of the system and are of like mind. This assists them in building a work history and me because I pay good, but not enough so that the guy who cuts my grass can live next door to my surgeon.

I'm a civilian militiaman, teaching others about survival skills - not only in the wild, but also in urban survivalism. My specialty is political guerrilla warfare and legal / political strategies. Others within my own group specialize in first aid, communications, self defense, home security, etc. We begin teaching people about having a family evacuation plan and an accompanying rendezvous protocol for most situations.

We urge our neighbors to have a minimum of supplies on hand (even if they are not preppers.) We show others how to construct their own Bug Out Bags and make even small preparations. Some actually get serious about the situation. I also encourage people to start their own garden and get someone to help them if they do. We show people how to save money and do their shopping at flea markets, garage sales, even Goodwill stores.

With respect to *this *particular discussion, You have to figure out what it would take to get you to abandon your lifestyle and go help someone - and it might require putting your *LIFE* on the line in order to defend *THEIR* Liberty. Needless to say, *NOBODY *protested gun control when the left marched for it during the latest mass shootings. Adding insult to injury, *I'm the only person who has presented Congress with a viable plan to reduce (and most likely eliminate) most mass shootings without gun control.* What do you think those efforts would be like if I had a website, a podcast, and were in a position to reach a broader audience?

Over the last thirty years I have had to spend tens of thousands of dollars fighting court cases, organizing meetings, and doing what I could to educate people against a well financed adversary. Virtually all of my contemporaries have been killed by LEOs, put in jails or prisons, forced to become snitches, and /or inadvertently been flipped and are stooges of the left. I've remained on the same course, for good or bad.

You would be hard pressed to find a family that has sweated, bled and sacrificed more than mine has. But, my last major defeat taught me that if we are not all in accord, Uncle Scam will split the effort, flip the phonies, and convert the masses. No major effort gets away with a free ride. If you're going to play, you're going to pay. The more successful the effort, the more people will be trying to bring you down. I may very well be representing the last of the constitutionalists, but don't ever think I'm into mental masturbation. The defense *NEVER* rests.

Addendum: I can only witness to you on this board. I have one more quarter of school and then will be working on something where the above will be put before the people - *nothing* of its kind exists. But, even with school, my other activities and prepping myself, If you need specific help, I have a PM. Honestly, I'm short on cash, but if push comes to shove, if I can't get you to the help you need, I'll do it on my own.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

The Resister said:


> Hardly. I am currently working on a degree in Christian Education. My ministry will officially launch the moment my degree is in my hand.
> 
> At the current time I'm working with legislators and have written a bill that is gaining traction and may get introduced when the Georgia legislature convenes next year. It is a prison reform bill that would do away with shortening the sentences of inmates. They would *earn* their time off by getting a GED, finishing substance abuse programs (if applicable) and learning life skills (how to get an apartment or home, getting credit, interview for a job, balance their checkbook, etc.) AND, once out, they would be in a half way house until they get a job and a place to stay.
> 
> ...


Interesting post; thanks for sharing your history and efforts - and I wish you the best luck and success!

There are many things that can be done to improve the situation - but my question was specific to bringing back the original constitution and the government intended by the founders.

Thanks anyway


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MountainGirl said:


> Interesting post; thanks for sharing your history and efforts - and I wish you the best luck and success!
> 
> There are many things that can be done to improve the situation - but my question was specific to bringing back the original constitution and the government intended by the founders.
> 
> Thanks anyway


I gave the specific answer. I'll repeat it and not be long winded:

In 1775 John Adams wrote a letter to Abigail Adams. I'd like to share his observation with you:

"_But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it_."

We cannot bring back the original Constitution. Follow me for a simple exercise:

We're mostly agreed on the meaning of the Second Amendment and I have quite a few likes for telling you that the recent courts *reinterpreted* the Constitution until it means exactly 180 degrees opposite of what the founders intended. Think about that one sentence in the 2008 Heller decision:

_"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited_."

Are *YOU* protesting the gun laws that don't directly affect you? Have you contacted other gun owners about the dangerous precedent that the bump stock ban will set? Do you understand the concept of legal precedents? You ask me what I'm doing. I tell you. But, me personally, I have no organization per se. What needs to be done *IS* being done and you seem to be making light of it. Getting beaten, shot at, shot, lied to, lied about, maligned on the Internet and run through the Courts should be enough to establish one's credibility. It isn't. So, I put the ball back into your court. What are *you *doing about the situation? You don't see a "_we_" in this equation or do we have to risk a charge of illegal conspiracy just to give you an answer you should be able to extrapolate from the many paragraphs I've written?

The obvious will not be justified until we have exhausted *all* of our nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress. It cannot be justified morally or legally. When we are finally forced to act OR accept slavery, we will perish unless we are all on the same page.


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MountainGirl said:


> Looking for your direct answer to my question of what can realistically be done, I found this:
> 
> (all formatting mine)
> 
> ...


An alternative response to this post:

Jesus had *twelve* disciples. He changed the world forever.

*Fifty six* men signed the Declaration of Independence, taking on the world's mightiest military force and created the greatest nation in the annals of history.

And, on the other side of the coin, an evil megalomaniac by the name of Adolf Hitler started out with a few people sipping beers in a pub and nearly took over the world with a country the size of Texas.

You are due a lesson from the left:

"_If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the awful roar of its many waters. This struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical; but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will._" -Frederick Douglass: Selected Speeches and Writings

If the right thinks they will prevail with any less conviction, they are in denial; they are deluded; they have lost before they've started.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

The Resister said:


> I gave the specific answer. I'll repeat it and not be long winded:
> 
> In 1775 John Adams wrote a letter to Abigail Adams. I'd like to share his observation with you:
> 
> ...


Actually, you didn't answer it, but John Adams did:

"_But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it_."

The Government has already changed from Freedom, Liberties have been given up through ignorance or apathy by the People. There is indeed a "we" in the equation - but it is not large enough, and you know it.

***

Your posts are somewhat interesting to read but factually inaccurate... specifically your previous statements that there was no resistance to the gun-restriction movements after the school shootings. That inaccuracy speaks to a lack of credibility in the remainder of your writings. Add to that you have done all these wonderful things, but cant get a webpage or podcast together? Right. Not to mention the numerous times you've stated that you have a solution that will end school shootings, among other things, but never quite get around to saying what your solutions are.

Feel free to reply/respond/defend/whatever so that others may benefit, or not, from your words; I'm not inclined to continue a discussion that, for me, is redundant.

Peace out. 

Edit to add:
You're not Jesus, the 56 men weren't facing Alexa (you get the point), and Hitler had a broken country as fodder. Most Americans aren't at the point of Revolution, yet. Which is why I asked you the original question.



The Resister said:


> An alternative response to this post:
> 
> Jesus had *twelve* disciples. He changed the world forever.
> 
> ...


Okay, now I'm gone. Couldn't let that Jesus comparison stand.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

MountainGirl said:


> Actually, you didn't answer it, but John Adams did:
> 
> "_But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it_."
> 
> ...


Can you go to the store and buy an automatic rifle, a short barrel rifle or short barrel shotgun or a suppressor? Are there states where a citizen has to jump through insumountable hoops to earn the privilege of exercising his right to bear a weapon? Are there states where my rifle magazines are illegal? No, you can't, and yes, there are.

Did people resist? What do you mean by resist? IF you mean they sent terse letters of dissent, promising to vote out of office the traitors or with the advent of social media take to the internet to huff and puff? Then yes, they resisted. They resisted but not enough to cause themselves discomfort. Obviously, not enough to make a difference. That being the case, they may as well not even "resisted."


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Denton said:


> Can you go to the store and buy an automatic rifle, a short barrel rifle or short barrel shotgun or a suppressor? Are there states where a citizen has to jump through insumountable hoops to earn the privilege of exercising his right to bear a weapon? Are there states where my rifle magazines are illegal? No, you can't, and yes, there are.


Yes - These are good examples of how 'infringing' has evolved.



> Did people resist? What do you mean by resist? IF you mean they sent terse letters of dissent, promising to vote out of office the traitors or with the advent of social media take to the internet to huff and puff? Then yes, they resisted. They resisted but not enough to cause themselves discomfort.


Really?? Because you didn't see it - it didn't happen??









The resistance wasn't (and never will be) covered by MSM, and pics like these are at the bottom of google searches. Use the search engine Duckduckgo and type in 'second amendment march" then click on Images. If you want to narrow it to this year's, type in "second amendment march 2018".



> Obviously, not enough to make a difference. That being the case, they may as well not even "resisted."


 And...that's why I asked Resister my original question. He talks big - I was hoping he had an idea about what would be enough to make a difference...against the behemoth this government has become.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

Revolution

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

MountainGirl said:


> Yes - These are good examples of how 'infringing' has evolved.
> 
> Really?? Because you didn't see it - it didn't happen??
> 
> ...


I am aware of such demonstrations. I've participated in such demonstrations. We gathered at the state capitol, made our righteous statements and went home. We numbered in the hundreds. Hundreds, when it should have been in the tens of thousands. Instead of going to the capitol steps, we should have used those steps to flood the capitol, itself instead of stopping at our comfort level.
What about at the national level? Millions of us should have stormed the halls in defense of our God-given rights, but that never happened.

No. We never resisted.


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

There are not enough of us that are willing to leave are homes, cell phones, IPADS, computers, and TV's long enough to resist in any numbers that would be effective. Things will have to get really bad, Venezuela bad, before people are motivated. By then it will be to late. The socialist plan is working wonderfully.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Denton said:


> I am aware of such demonstrations. I've participated in such demonstrations. *(So have we)* We gathered at the state capitol, made our righteous statements and went home. We numbered in the hundreds. Hundreds, when it should have been in the tens of thousands. Instead of going to the capitol steps, we should have used those steps to flood the capitol, itself instead of stopping at our comfort level.
> What about at the national level? Millions of us should have stormed the halls in defense of our God-given rights, but that never happened.
> 
> No. We never resisted.


Again, that's why I asked him the original question:



MountainGirl said:


> Resister, I understand your position, and happen to be in full agreement on this. You have laid out this case well.
> 
> That said, what *realistic* thing do you believe can be done to change the situation? That constitutional water is so far under the bridge it's not even the same river anymore.
> 
> Anything short of a nation-wide reverting or return would be ineffective and the odds against that happening are astronomical. So...other than rant, rave and spread the word (which might feel good but is little more then mental masturbation) - or a nation-wide revolution - exactly what do you propose that would be realistically effective, in the here and now?


Now, I'm asking you (and anyone): *What can realistically be effective?*

Is it only as MaterialGeneral suggests?



MaterielGeneral said:


> Revolution
> 
> Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

MountainGirl said:


> Again, that's why I asked him the original question:
> 
> Now, I'm asking you (and anyone): *What can realistically be effective?*
> 
> Is it only as MaterialGeneral suggests?


I just told you what would be effective, and we never did it. We didn't do it when our culture was more homogeneous and a lot more of us believed in that Creator who endowed us with those rights. Look at the nation, now. You'll get more participants at an LBGTQ-whatever rally featuring "nasty girl" celebrity speakers.
@The Resister has been telling you how things should be. I immersed myself in the topic, if you want to call it that, for many years, and I will vouch for him. I'll tell you this, also; there is no realistic expectation of this society demanding things to be put back in proper order. The nation is morally degenerate. Do you expect righteous behavior from a degenerate society?


----------



## Prepared One (Nov 5, 2014)

What loss before the revolution? The loss of hope that things will get better.


----------



## MountainGirl (Oct 29, 2017)

Denton said:


> I just told you what would be effective, and we never did it.


Why not?

On that day, in that protest, why did you all not do what you say would be effective? _"Instead of going to the capitol steps, we should have used those steps to flood the capitol, itself instead of stopping at our comfort level."_



> We didn't do it when our culture was more homogeneous and a lot more of us believed in that Creator who endowed us with those rights. Look at the nation, now. You'll get more participants at an LBGTQ-whatever rally featuring "nasty girl" celebrity speakers.
> @*The Resister* has been telling you how things should be. I immersed myself in the topic, if you want to call it that, for many years, and I will vouch for him. I'll tell you this, also; there is no realistic expectation of this society demanding things to be put back in proper order. The nation is morally degenerate. Do you expect righteous behavior from a degenerate society?


Denton, friend, we are on the same side, as is Resister. I agree that there is no realistic expectation of this society. Nor do I have unrealistic expectations that there is something, _anything_ - that could bring us as a Nation to where we should be.

Yet, hope springs eternal  so I asked, just in case there was.

I'll withdraw my question; if there actually was something effective that could be done in this day and age, that you would be willing to do - no doubt you, Resister, me and many others would have already done it.

Thanks for your replies!


----------



## The Resister (Jul 24, 2013)

MountainGirl said:


> Actually, you didn't answer it, but John Adams did:
> 
> "_But a Constitution of Government once changed from Freedom, can never be restored. Liberty once lost is lost forever. When the People once surrender their share in the Legislature, and their Right of defending the Limitations upon the Government, and of resisting every Encroachment upon them, they can never regain it_."
> 
> ...


So, you never intended to really support a realistic approach to regaining Freedom and Liberty (which is different from returning back to constitutional principles.) And yes, I *DID*, as a matter of fact, answer your question. I used a founding father's words to do so.

You like to argue, but you are fundamentally wrong. When the anti-gunners show up, they command *big* headlines. Token opposition is *NO* real opposition. The impression that the public is being given is that the masses want gun control, but nothing could be further from the truth. But, the bottom line to all bottom lines is that the right, predictably, is not putting alternatives on the table. Arming teachers is going to stop mass shootings? Yeah, right.

You and I can trade insults back and forth all day long. That is why nothing gets done and ultimately the left always wins. As Jefferson observed:

"_The natural progress of things is for liberty to yeild,1 and government to gain ground_"

You think you're going to school me in some way, you are way the Hell off. * Every* major historical change has taken place with small groups. The Jesus analogy, whether you like it or not, is applicable. In America the overwhelming majority was against separating from Great Britain. People met in their homes, churches, and even barns for years before they could agree with a unified effort to take on Great Britain:

American History: How the Revolution Against Britain Divided Families and Friends (VOA Special English 2007-12-26)

You statement that I'm not Jesus was both inflammatory and idiotic. It is what initiates flame wars. I never claimed to be Jesus. The point of the lesson is that Jesus never worked among the masses. In America, the first governing document was the Mayflower Compact. In its opening, we find these words:

"_Having undertaken, for the glory of God, and advancement of the Christian faith, and honor of our King and Country, a voyage to plant the first colony in the northern parts of Virginia, do by these presents solemnly and mutually, in the presence of God, and one of another, covenant and combine our selves together into a civil body politic, for our better ordering and preservation and furtherance of the ends aforesaid_..."

America began with 102 people actually setting foot on this soil to colonize it. Over half were dead within a year, but the effort kept pushing forward.

From your writings, Mountain Girl, you have no plan; *YOU* are not actively sacrificing and working to make any change. You are only criticizing those who do. Here I am working my butt off and you make light of it. I told you I'm in college, pursuing a degree, drafting legislation and lobbying for it, plus using some of my time to visit sites like this and hoping to help do my part to encourage people to get involved. So, HELL NO Mountain Girl. I do not have the expertise nor the time to stop, learn podcasting nor building websites (bear in mind I have no organization and no staff.) Local supporters donated all we need, however, to do a lot of the work (podcasting mics, voice recorder, etc.) but I'm one person. I did advertise on local sites (including patriot sites) and Craigslist offering to pay someone to take a week-end teach me personally how to do podcasting. No takers. If I have to teach myself a skill set I don't have, it will take some time. I simply don't have it at the moment.

Just so you know, a state representative in Georgia challenged me to come up with legislative proposals that would reduce mass shootings *without* gun control (a skill set the right does not possess.) After doing an eight page draft of what the idea entails, he has asked me to keep working on it, planning to use some of it in next year's legislative session.

And your accomplishments were?

"_Men occasionally stumble over the truth but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing happened_."-Winston Churchill


----------



## MisterMills357 (Apr 15, 2015)

Denton said:


> The nation is morally degenerate. Do you expect righteous behavior from a degenerate society?


Yes, the nation is degenerate and without regeneration, it is as good as lost, and the militarization of the police is a symptom of degeneracy. As the nation sinks deeper, it will become more and more of a police state. And you may live to see APC's or tanks on the street, it has happened in other places. America is reaping the seeds that it sowed, and the fruit of the tree is poison.

If America does not have a "going back to God", it is finished; without a Christian revival, and counter-offensive against the Deep State & Leftists, Americas goose is cooked. And after that moment of action, there must be a devoted guarding of liberty. That is a tough job, and as events are proving, it is one that America has failed at, and may continue to do so. As a people we stupidly think that a "fix" is all that is needed. That is what we do, we patch the tire and go on. But, this time, the whole nation needs to be renewed, and who has the fortitude to do that?

I hope and pray that it happens---and I really do pray for America, and President Trump---but, I know that we may come up short, and lose it all. There is a venom inside of America, and it was put there by serpents, and it can kill the nation, if not dealt with.

[You know that, and so do I, and most of the this forum knows it. I thought that I would mention it.]


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

I'm Christian, I firmly believe we are in the end times. Everything is written out to where it is not going to be getting any better.

I think that militarized police is just part of it that will get worse. I think there is a lot of well meaning people but in time it will get worse. Thru attrition well meaning people can be changed with those indocrinated to follow orders and that goes for the military as well.

Right now if you look on YouTube you will see all forms of constitutional rights violation from physical abuse, searching without a warrant to intimidation. That is what has been captured by camera.

Give it 10 more years, it's going to be interesting.

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Gator Monroe (Jul 29, 2017)

Police are Militia (If you go by Texas Ranger past )


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

Prepared One said:


> I call on a city in my area who's fire department requested automatic AR's as part of their load out. It's a very slippery slope.


I think it's a good and necessary move. Some bangers/home-grown-terrorists start fires and wait for the firefighters to show up, and try to shoot them.

If you and I can go armed, shouldn't a firefighter?


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

As long as the police obey the law and abide by the constitution I am fine with whatever you what to give them. Someday I think it will come in handy when we have a terrorists attack...

on the other hand, when they start rounding up Christians, Jews, conservatives, and constitutionalist... it is going to suck

on the back side of the other hand, it is cheaper to get a nice rifle from bad guy then it is to buy it.. plus it usually comes with free ammo


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

If it comes to that, I have a .22LR conversion kit for my .45 ACP. They had pistols in WWII called "Liberators." They were single shot .45 ACPs used to kill Nazis who had better guns.

Why re-invent the wheel?


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

The Tourist said:


> I think it's a good and necessary move. Some bangers/home-grown-terrorists start fires and wait for the firefighters to show up, and try to shoot them.
> 
> If you and I can go armed, shouldn't a firefighter?


A better alternative is to have an SOP that a police officer or two has to respond to every call. Firemen are not police or military. What's next giving the mailman an AR15?

Sent from my XT1585 using Tapatalk


----------



## Tango2X (Jul 7, 2016)

Doesn't matter how militarized they are, if they are given stand down orders, and do nothing


----------



## The Tourist (Jun 9, 2016)

MaterielGeneral said:


> A better alternative is to have an SOP that a police officer or two has to respond to every call.


In some areas that would be perfect. I live in the 'burbs, and right now they are sending two squad cars to every call in our "ghetto area" thinning out the thin blue line even thinner.

My guess is that our volunteer fire department has lots of shooters. Besides, bangers in the Dane County area area brain-dead jerks who cannot even hit each other. And yes, I have so much contempt for these idiots that I think they could even miss a big red truck with lights flashing.


----------



## Maine-Marine (Mar 7, 2014)

MaterielGeneral said:


> I'm Christian, I firmly believe we are in the end times.


Once the covenant is confirmed with many we will be in the END times.. until then it is just a slow slide down hill...


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Our biggest issue is that the Police don't interact with our cities best and brightest citizens every day...they instead interact with our worst.

We need to find ways to remind them that they are our front line defense, and who it is they are defending.


Towns and cities perpetuate the belief that the police work for the city Government...we must remind them that they work for the cities tax payers and citizens..and the Government is a temporary management construct.

Invite your local police to your cook out...your block party...your pig pickin... then talk to them like they were your brothers and not an authority above you.

Tone is everything.


p.s. I don't deal with end time debate...cause then its really out of my control....until it is plain...I do what I can.


----------



## Smokin04 (Jan 29, 2014)

As a military AND law enforcement guy, I can tell you that Police depts. have NOWHERE EVEN CLOSE to the firepower that the military has. Police have small arms (or what the military considers small arms anyway) and maybe a helicopter (unarmed) and an armored vehicle or two. Automatic rifles aren't even a thing in the military unless you're rocking a dedicated crew served weapon. (Of note: the smallest non-crew served weapon that is full auto is the M249 SAW and we still usually had an assistant gunner to aid in barrel changing. I know because I was a SAW gunner) Standard issue M4 is a 3-round burst weapon...has been that way for 15 years after the GAU-5 (which I also carried) went away.

I WISH the lower level departments had access to more powerful weapons. It's a cost efficiency trade off. When the lower level guys need more serious weapons, they usually have to call another agency to support (serve a high risk warrant, barricaded suspect, hostages, etc.) which quickly becomes an expensive proposition. Bad for the tax payers right? If the lowest level cops had the weapons, equipment, and training to handle the more intense stuff, it pays it forward to the upper level guys that no longer have to deal with the risky stuff on their behalf. Win/Win all around. 

Unfortunately, the ONLY way to keep the peace is through SUPERIOR fire power. Why else do you hear examples like East St. Louis being un-policed due to fear of being shot at? Cops are out-gunned. Personally, I would love to take a squad of heavily armed men and drive my armored car through the middle of that bitch, and welcome the gun fight with the assholes who think it's okay to fire a weapon at a police officer. They'll end up in two places. In hand-cuffs, or in a body-bag.


----------



## SGT E (Feb 25, 2015)

Showed my local cops a couple of side panels from an armoured car I shot through a few years ago...1.5 inches thick both sides.....they got really upset but figured there was nothing they could do....An M113?...no problem....old style junk! The new mine proof crap can be rendered useless by paint balls and bags of oil paint on the windows.... they gotta come out to clean it!...then they are screwed again LOL!..Play soldier...see if the insurgents don't take you out.....been there and seen it!


----------



## StratMaster (Dec 26, 2017)

Old SF Guy said:


> Our biggest issue is that the Police don't interact with our cities best and brightest citizens every day...they instead interact with our worst.
> 
> We need to find ways to remind them that they are our front line defense, and who it is they are defending.
> 
> ...


That's exactly right.
I can tell a lot of our officers in town are a bit standoffish to civilians... because of just what you described. I ALWAYS wave at LEO as they come down my street, and always say hello and thank them for the tough job they do for us every day. And... miracles of miracles! Now they see ME and wave, and sometimes stop to say Hi. They are an integral part of our community, and we need to make them feel like part of us, NOT separate from us.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

SGT E said:


> Showed my local cops a couple of side panels from an armoured car I shot through a few years ago...1.5 inches thick both sides.....they got really upset but figured there was nothing they could do....An M113?...no problem....old style junk! The new mine proof crap can be rendered useless by paint balls and bags of oil paint on the windows.... they gotta come out to clean it!...then they are screwed again LOL!..Play soldier...see if the insurgents don't take you out.....been there and seen it!


Treat your local LE like your enemy, they will become your enemy....show them whose side they should be on and more importantly why.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

Look folks...My job is and has been to build insurgencies within...it is all about perception... you are at least starting with people who speak your language....Don't bitch to me if you can't even get your local police on your side....it means you don't have a good message.


I know I can get disenfranchised people to kill...it just means I have to wait until you become disenfranchised to get you to listen to me.


----------



## Denton (Sep 18, 2012)

Old SF Guy said:


> Look folks...My job is and has been to build insurgencies within...it is all about perception... you are at least starting with people who speak your language....Don't bitch to me if you can't even get your local police on your side....it means you don't have a good message.
> 
> I know I can get disenfranchised people to kill...it just means I have to wait until you become disenfranchised to get you to listen to me.


Way ahead of you, brother. Working to get the local PD on my side.


----------



## MaterielGeneral (Jan 27, 2015)

Old SF Guy said:


> Treat your local LE like your enemy, they will become your enemy....show them whose side they should be on and more importantly why.


I agree with everything you have said so far buy my response is to those defending militarization of the police.

My issue is police corruption. Yes I know every cop is not bad but what about those that are. Look on YouTube and other media. You will see intimidation, excessive use of force, searching(including homes) without a warrant, that last one floored me. You will see many videos of officers violating the 1st Amendment by ordering or forcing people to stop recording them in public. What do they have to hide? Body cams should be mandatory and if you tamper your suspended without pay.

Do you want to militarize officers like that? Cops are the same as correction officers you have the brotherhood and if you snitch your banned. When I was an officer and someone was found out to be a snitch then we refused to speak to them unless we had to and tried to never have the person around us. What needs to happen is to make a 5 year felony that if you cover or lie for another officer that broke the law including violate a persons civil rights or knowingly did not report them, then you will go to court. Same with prosecutors because they are not saints. Suppressing evidence, lying or covering for corrupt police then they get a 5 year felony and stripped of their bar or what ever its called.

The reason why I may have sounded strong opinionated is that all it takes is time. In time a bad cop will turn a good cop bad. Or the good cop will leave the force out of morals.


----------



## Old SF Guy (Dec 15, 2013)

@MaterielGeneral...You are absolutely correct. But that happens when LE see themselves as the Good versus the bad and not beholden to the people. This is also caused by local city government that often has less than 10% population turn out electing them and they believe the "Government" owns things, vice them working for the people.

How do we fix this? By knowing who the DA, Judge, Mayor, Chief of Police are, and confronting them on this behavior. Build a coalition of citizens to confront them at town halls and city counsel meetings.

They rig these by making citizens interact as individuals, while they sit as a unified counsel. The way to get to them is by showing them that you represent a large portion of a motivated voter base that will take this all the way to the 3 Boxes....(Soap, Ballot, Ammo).

How do you show them this? Hit them at their core....Donors. Let the Donors know where you stand and let them know that you and your allies will work against their interests if they continue supporting the candidate in question. Politicians can ignore Papers all day...right up until its checks or cash.


----------

