What will you do when the come for you: Part 2

[Stomper]

I felt the need to start this thread because the last one with a similar name was closed due to it (sadly) degrading into personal insults and attacks to wards a particular member posting an unpopular opinion/position in it. I don't ascribe to the demeaning of ANYONE'S military service... from supply clerks and cooks, to the "cool guy" snake-eaters... all service is honorable, we all had/have a part to play that made/makes the machine do what it does... prosecute the defense of this country and its Constitution.

I didn't get a chance to post a reply to the unpopular opinion that I read early this morning, as I wanted to ponder a cogent response and not dog pile onto said member with the unpopular opinion who has indeed proved himself (to me anyway) to be a thoughtful, articulate, commentator who has my respect, even though I conclude we are not in agreement on more than a few things in life.



The original topic was just as the thread's name states, and sets the context of this quote (member name withheld unless he wants to claim it).



One of the the unpopular posts from this member was this...

No, our children will be fools if they think the only way to insure freedom is through violence.

If you are singled out by the government for removal of your firearms there is likely a reason...and fighting back violently will only make the public believe that reason is valid. In such a case you would need to fight back in a way that evokes sympathy from the public...not in a way that frightens them or you play into the hands of the people taking your guns.

In the case of an outright ban on firearms by popular vote of the people then you would have the option of leaving the country. You do not have the moral authority to decide you know better and try to violently overthrow the will of the masses.

In the case of a rogue government that works against the people and public opinion is against the government is the only time people can rally and fight with any chance of victory. Even in this case fighting back as a lone defender of your home against a government incursion is foolishness and poor battle planning. You would just be sacrificing yourself and removing a fighter from the arena. A martyr would serve no purpose in an environment where the battle lines are already drawn. You would be much wiser to cooperate and turn over whatever weapons they are able to find. This isn't the movies where acting tough in the face of overwhelming odds gets you anything but killed...and probably your family killed too. You survive, regroup, coordinate, and act at another time.

This post stirred me up to say the least, and I thought it best to step back and ponder it during the course of my day today in order to have a critical discussion. I shall respond (not attack) piece by piece, quote by quote.

No, our children will be fools if they think the only way to insure freedom is through violence.

No sir, I contend that the THREAT of (overwhelming) violence is what will (and does) ensure freedom. Its what keeps MOST criminals/thugs from breaking into MOST houses or assaulting MOST people on the street.

The THREAT of overwhelming violence is what keeps the "Arabs" from exterminating Israel and its citizens, the THREAT of overwhelming violence is what kept the Soviets at bay (for the most part) around the world, and "won" the Cold War.

I also contend that the THREAT of overwhelming violence is what has kept our Constitution alive for over 200 years DESPITE the efforts of "learned" men (and women) who have dashed themselves against its anvil-like structure, trying to beat it down... they come and go, but the Constitution is still there!

If you are singled out by the government for removal of your firearms there is likely a reason...and fighting back violently will only make the public believe that reason is valid. In such a case you would need to fight back in a way that evokes sympathy from the public...not in a way that frightens them or you play into the hands of the people taking your guns.

The government has ALREADY singled out certain people for firearms confiscation, the implementation of it is waiting in the wings for the "perfect storm" to set it in motion. Case in point, DHS Director Janet Napolitano has PERSONALLY said (to the effect) that Military Veterans, particularly male Caucasian "traditionalists" are the prime demographic for "homegrown terrorists" and "anti-government militia members.

The public (at large) will believe whatever lie the media will force feed it given enough time. I'm not too concerned with what the (general) population sympathizes over as they're too busy with their "pop-culture issues de jure" anyway. Often times its a lonely place standing up for what is right, even lonelier when your life is at stake.

By giving up your firearms, you are ALREADY "playing right into the hands of the people taking your guns".

In the case of an outright ban on firearms by popular vote of the people then you would have the option of leaving the country. You do not have the moral authority to decide you know better and try to violently overthrow the will of the masses.

Leave the country and go where exactly? I've been all over Europe, Central and South "Amerika", Canada, and Australia... The U.S.A. is it, its the last stand for true freedom in this world that the human race YEARNS for (just ask all those Mexicans risking everything sneaking across the deserts), there's no other place left to go... if we go down that's it.... prepare for 1000 years of "darkness" for your descendants... if you have any left. You think the Chinese or whatever European "Union" is around will be benevolent? Guess again.

In the context of a Constitutional amendment (which your comment was based on), there could never be a (legal) "popular vote" of the people, it would have to go through the machinations of the Constitutional Convention process... which is a good thing, as it HELPS protect us from "mob rule".

Let's say there was a vote to outright ban same-sex marriage, or some other "pet cause" you may have that specifically impacts you. Would you have the same stance on "moral authority" in your above statement if you and your lifestyle were banned? I don't need to tell you that there is a STRONG "defense of marriage" movement that's pushing for a Constitutional Amendment and/or statute laws pertaining to just that.

What if you were confronted with that one day? What if same-sex couples were ordered to surrender their kids (adopted or otherwise)? I bet you'd be a livid, fierce, badger-like opponent if they "came for you" (its happens(ed) in other countries), and those "lifestyle issues" aren't even specifically addressed by the Constitution, however the 2A is pretty clear on firearms. IMHO it is analogous to the "original argument"... I guess it comes down to priorities.

In the case of a rogue government that works against the people and public opinion is against the government is the only time people can rally and fight with any chance of victory. Even in this case fighting back as a lone defender of your home against a government incursion is foolishness and poor battle planning. You would just be sacrificing yourself and removing a fighter from the arena. A martyr would serve no purpose in an environment where the battle lines are already drawn. You would be much wiser to cooperate and turn over whatever weapons they are able to find. This isn't the movies where acting tough in the face of overwhelming odds gets you anything but killed...and probably your family killed too. You survive, regroup, coordinate, and act at another time.

I understand what you are saying about the "lone defender/Rambo" thing, and I see your point (to a point), and are possibly calling out some of those in the last thread who may be talking smack.

The population in this country is so fractured, that I dare say it will NEVER agree to even disagree, and I believe this is by short term and long-term design.

Politicians have so polarized their constituency groups to get elected and maintain their power (aka paychecks and "contributions") that "liberals" and "conservatives" would just as soon pour more fire on each other if the other was actually on fire... this is "short- term" design.

"Puppet masters" (like Geo. Soros, and other "world elites") have so corrupted "the system" to the point that the "everyday citizen" would NEVER have a chance to get elected to office unless they have the right "pedigree". Only politicians that do the long term bidding of "world elites" get the funding to campaign and get elected. The long term goal is to divide the spoils that is the USA, including its citizens.

I'm all for protecting the lives of our families, but how many more times must we retreat, regroup, and coordinate (as if... see last paragraph)? How many more times do we "suck it up"? How many more lines in the sand is enough?

Finally, concerning another post you made in the other thread... "none of us will ever know how we will perform/behave under fire, and the "big talking macho men" are usually the first to fold and collaborate with the enemy". What you say is generally true, but I wear the scars from an RPG (shot in anger) across the left side of my nose and left temple... I KNOW how I'd perform/behave under fire... if only briefly before I'm "slotted", because if that day DOES come in my lifetime... I'm already dead, and THAT my friend is the nightmare no opposing soldier/thug/despot wants to face.



To the member in question, please take this response in the respectful spirit I say it is meant to be, and I also enjoy and subscribe to your You-tube submissions as they are done quite well.

Read More

 

[Teacher Todd]

The title of the threads has been what will you do when they come for you and your guns. I don't believe it is ever going to happen so I am not to concerned, maybe a 4 out of 10. What I believe will happen is there will be another "Assault" Weapons Ban and so I am stock piling AR-15 Lowers for the future as well as building my ammunition supplies for my current inventory. I also believe that we will continue to ebb and flow in that if there is another ban then just like the last one, we will vote new people into office and the ban will be lifted again. The U.N. small arms treaty bothers me, but all of my research has shown that even when it passes the U.N. the senate will not ratify it. Believe it or not there are supporters of the 2nd amendment on both sides of the aisle. I am registered as a democrat so I can vote in primaries, but really I am an independent with both conservative and liberal views who is an avid gun enthusiast. When comparing candidates I don't vote by party, but by the issues that are important to me. Mitt Romney, currently one of the favorites for the GOP is more anti-gun then even Obama has shown so far and that disappoints me. Hopefully someone steps up for the GOP as I will vote for the strongest 2nd amendment candiate without regard to party affiliation.

As I was reading the previous thread it became apparent that people believe the government will send in the military and disarm us and that they believe it is going to happen tomorrow. If you look at history that is not how it happened in either Australia or England. In those countries people voluntarily turned in their guns. They gave up the rights willingly. I believe our country will continue to be legislated and the anti gunners will pass laws to ban and the 2nd amendment suporters will pass repeals to those laws and other laws to protect our rights. I just don't seeing this country turning in its guns and I don't believe for one second that anyone will think that trying to disarm us via force is a good idea. For every stupid law passed like the Brady bill we can work to repeal it. Be involved in your local politics and run for office. And if the day does come where the military is sent out to disarm then God help us all and this liberal neighbor will stand side by side with you, actually snipe from a mile away with a barrett .50 cal semi auto. Lucky for me I don't believe it will happen and I do not lose any sleep. Be prepared but not be paranoid.

 

[soberups]

Door-to-door confiscations of our guns by blue-helmeted UN fascists or rogue police/military is a paranoid fantasy that isnt going to happen in real life. It would be both logistically and politically impossible.

The real threat to our rights comes in the form of a slow death by a thousand cuts. It will come incrementally. Ever-expanding "assault" weapon restrictions....zoning restrictions on FFL's that put them out of business....increased taxes and licenses and fees to purchase guns or ammo.....requiring the implementation of "smart-gun" child proof technology....liability insurance requirements for gun owners....there is no end to the stupid "feel-good" laws that the anti-gunners are yearning to shove down our throats. Its already happened to a large degree in Califiornia. The end result will be that we will still have a "theoretical" right to own some sort of gun, but as a practical reality it will be too difficult and expensive for most people to exercise that right.

 

[Stomper]

I agree with you for the most part, but don't think for a moment that "regional confiscations" can't/won't occur... just ask the citizens in Louisiana after Katrina... or in the southern border states like NM, AZ, TX, etc.... with the "enhanced ATF requirements" of visiting people's homes if they happened to buy more than one firearm... all because of what the BATF did with allowing gun running and straw purchases.

 

[Fossilman]

Do as they may,but I will always have a weapon near me,either bought or homemade!I believe in the NRA and its standings in DC........As long as we have people like this standing up for our rights,I believe we are safe for the time being...

 

[Stomper]

Do as they may,but I will always have a weapon near me,either bought or homemade!I believe in the NRA and its standings in DC........As long as we have people like this standing up for our rights,I believe we are safe for the time being...

Don't get TOO complacent, because the NRA is full of HUMANS and as the old adage goes (that I just made up... LOL), "When money talks, civil rights walk".

 

[Misterbill]

There is a level of paranoia that's getting worse and worse out there among gun people and frankly it's pretty disturbing.

The notion that Obama (or any other president) would order an extra-legal gun confiscation is frankly ludicrous. And using Katrina as an example is silly. Katrina wasn't even an organized attempt to confiscate all guns. It was the country's most corrupt and inept police department in the face of a massive natural disaster acting like thugs and buffoons. -Hardly an insidious plot to disarm everyone. More like the Keystone Kops.

Guns are more popular than ever, all over the country. Even in Massachusetts where I was living for 8 years, gun ownership and interest in guns has skyrocketed post Heller. The rest of the country is even more so. We have a giant swathe of LIBERAL politicians that are also pro-gun. We have Heller and Macdonald. We had a huge victory even in the 90s with the Brady Bill being declared unconstitutional. The UN Small Arms treaty, which the last time I read it quite explicitly exempts personal lawful arms probably won't even have a shot at ratification just because of the hyperbole surrounding it. So our politicians are going against something merely because the rumor-mill says it's anti-gun.

In short, of all the times to be worried, this is the LEAST appropriate since I've been paying attention -The last 35 years or so.

Preparing to fight against the evuuul tyrannical leftist gun-grabbing government is a paranoid fantasy.

 

[FourTeeFive]

And using Katrina as an example is silly. Katrina wasn't even an organized attempt to confiscate all guns. It was the country's most corrupt and inept police department in the face of a massive natural disaster acting like thugs and buffoons. -Hardly an insidious plot to disarm everyone. More like the Keystone Kops.

Uh, those Keystone Kops were in some cases joined by the National Guard who helped in the Katrina gun confiscation. LEO's and military do as they are ordered to do. It did happen and, under the right circumstances, could happen again.

Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Misterbill]

Uh, those Keystone Kops were in some cases joined by the National Guard who helped in the Katrina gun confiscation. LEO's and military do as they are ordered to do. It did happen and, under the right circumstances, could happen again.

Criticism of government response to Hurricane Katrina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm well aware of the Katrina F-ups. But again I stand by the statement. This wasn't a statewide order to disarm everyone as part of an insidious plot. It was a colossally stupid order by inept buffoons who didn't know where to find their own butts with a map.

Using Katrina as an example of the evuuul commie gubmint coming to take your guns is silly. It's not even apples and oranges. It's more like Apples and freight trains.

 

[dmancornell]

Using Katrina as an example of the evuuul commie gubmint coming to take your guns is silly. It's not even apples and oranges. It's more like Apples and freight trains.

Indeed, when the government decides it takes your guns, it will be in the form of smirking, suited fascists on Capitol Hill passing an unconstitutional bill:

FOPA Hughes Amendment VOTE APRIL 10 1986 - YouTube

 

[Gunner3456]

There is a level of paranoia that's getting worse and worse out there among gun people and frankly it's pretty disturbing.

The notion that Obama (or any other president) would order an extra-legal gun confiscation is frankly ludicrous. And using Katrina as an example is silly. Katrina wasn't even an organized attempt to confiscate all guns. It was the country's most corrupt and inept police department in the face of a massive natural disaster acting like thugs and buffoons. -Hardly an insidious plot to disarm everyone. More like the Keystone Kops.

Guns are more popular than ever, all over the country. Even in Massachusetts where I was living for 8 years, gun ownership and interest in guns has skyrocketed post Heller. The rest of the country is even more so. We have a giant swathe of LIBERAL politicians that are also pro-gun. We have Heller and Macdonald. We had a huge victory even in the 90s with the Brady Bill being declared unconstitutional. The UN Small Arms treaty, which the last time I read it quite explicitly exempts personal lawful arms probably won't even have a shot at ratification just because of the hyperbole surrounding it. So our politicians are going against something merely because the rumor-mill says it's anti-gun.

In short, of all the times to be worried, this is the LEAST appropriate since I've been paying attention -The last 35 years or so.

Preparing to fight against the evuuul tyrannical leftist gun-grabbing government is a paranoid fantasy.

All it takes is a couple of more liberal appointee to the Supreme Court, and the definition of "a well armed militia" could change in a heartbeat. It could easily be ruled that individuals don't have the right, only a "militia" by today's definition. There goes the individual's right to own guns and there are people just salivating to get that done.

 

[Stomper]

... and in case you forgot or weren't paying attention, BOTH SCJ's Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan try to have it both ways with the 2A... saying it pertains to "militias" and its a "state's rights issue" that the Fed has no business butting into, like the Chicago and DC rulings... if they can't do it via a "central government", they'll do it piecemeal via state by state.... but the curtain came down and their pants were down.

Not to mention our esteemed "poser in cheif" CONSTANLY tries to rule by fiat, making the congress and senate irrelevant... he couldn't get "amnesty for illegals", so now he has directed the DHS/ICE not to prosecute and deport illegals "who are in school" (on the public dime at that!)

He couldn't get "cap and trade" through a democrat controlled congress (let alone the current republican controlled one) so what does he do? He directs the EPA to declare carbon dioxide a "pollutant" and regluate it (i.e. TAX IT!!).

In both cases this is more or less the end result of having passed it LEGALLY through the congress and senate, but since it didn't go his way he just decided to E.O. it through... if that schmuck gets re-elected, what do you REALLY think he'll do next? Give me a flippin' break... PLEASE!

 

[DMax]

There is a level of paranoia that's getting worse and worse out there among gun people and frankly it's pretty disturbing.

The notion that Obama (or any other president) would order an extra-legal gun confiscation is frankly ludicrous. And using Katrina as an example is silly. Katrina wasn't even an organized attempt to confiscate all guns. It was the country's most corrupt and inept police department in the face of a massive natural disaster acting like thugs and buffoons. -Hardly an insidious plot to disarm everyone. More like the Keystone Kops.

Guns are more popular than ever, all over the country. Even in Massachusetts where I was living for 8 years, gun ownership and interest in guns has skyrocketed post Heller. The rest of the country is even more so. We have a giant swathe of LIBERAL politicians that are also pro-gun. We have Heller and Macdonald. We had a huge victory even in the 90s with the Brady Bill being declared unconstitutional. The UN Small Arms treaty, which the last time I read it quite explicitly exempts personal lawful arms probably won't even have a shot at ratification just because of the hyperbole surrounding it. So our politicians are going against something merely because the rumor-mill says it's anti-gun.

In short, of all the times to be worried, this is the LEAST appropriate since I've been paying attention -The last 35 years or so.

Preparing to fight against the evuuul tyrannical leftist gun-grabbing government is a paranoid fantasy.

And yes we did not have our king fiat the dream act before he left on vacation either. Never say Never

 

[Misterbill]

All it takes is a couple of more liberal appointee to the Supreme Court, and the definition of "a well armed militia" could change in a heartbeat. It could easily be ruled that individuals don't have the right, only a "militia" by today's definition. There goes the individual's right to own guns and there are people just salivating to get that done.

Wow, you're salivating over the evil commie-libs coming after your guns (OK, I admit I'm projecting that onto you based on your reply) and you don't even know the text of the second amendment?

"well REGULATED militia. NOT "Well-armed." Get a grip. And BTW I would be shocked and amazed if liberal justices, within 6-8 years of a landmark pro-rights case turning Stare-decicis on it's head and reversing a high-court opinion. It doesn't work that way. and it never has.

 

[Misterbill]

And yes we did not have our king fiat the dream act before he left on vacation either. Never say Never

Yes, an executive order to change how a federal agency operates. In spite of how congress feels on the matter. Only Obama would ever dream of such a thing.

Where the **** have you been in the last 30 years? Because paying attention clearly hasn't been on the list.

Every president since (and including) Reagan has used executive orders to get the federal government to do what he wants when he can't get congress to approve a measure not CLEARLY requiring congressional action. It's not new. Were you whining when Reagan and Bush made executive orders banning foreign aid that included birth control programs in contravention to the clear will of congress? And that's the least of their executive orders.

Where were you when Woo et al were saying (and the President's office was acting on) that indeterminate detention without charge and torture of an American citizen was perfectly okey dokey? Or is your newfound sense of civil-libertarianism and constitutional absolutism just post-Bush?

Seriously. You bring up an executive order on immigration and intimate this means we will have the blue-helmeted one-world-order commie UN etc. thugs at our doorstep any day?

This is the best you can do?

Take a chill pill.

 

[Powderman]

Folks, I believe that our rights--indeed, our very existence as a free Nation is based on four boxes.
The soap box--we step up on it to express ourselves in our society.
The ballot box--where we can vote those in who best represent We, the People.
The jury box--where we can plead our cases for redress.
And--as the founding fathers noted, when all else fails--the cartridge box.

I must say this, however...I have never seen the problem addressed so eloquently as I have from the author of the following text. Note his office well--if HE can see this, we need to sit up and take note.

__________________________________________

"The majority falls prey to the delusion -- popular in some circles -- that ordinary people are too careless and stupid to own guns, and we would be far better off leaving all weapons in the hands of professionals on the government payroll. But the simple truth -- born of experience -- is that tyranny thrives best where government need not fear the wrath of an armed people. Our own sorry history bears this out: Disarmament was the tool of choice for subjugating both slaves and free blacks in the South. In Florida, patrols searched blacks' homes for weapons, confiscated those found and punished their owners without judicial process. (See Robert J. Cottrol & Raymond T. Diamond, The Second Amendment: Toward an Afro-Americanist Reconsideration, 80 Geo. L.J. 309, 338 (1991).) In the North, by contrast, blacks exercised their right to bear arms to defend against racial mob violence. (Id. at 341- 42.) As Chief Justice Taney well appreciated, the institution of slavery required a class of people who lacked the means to resist. (See Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 393, 417 (1857) (finding black citizenship unthinkable because it would give blacks the right to "keep and carry arms wherever they went"). A revolt by Nat Turner and a few dozen other armed blacks could be put down without much difficulty; one by four million armed blacks would have meant big trouble.

"All too many of the other great tragedies of history -- Stalin's atrocities, the killing fields of Cambodia, the Holocaust, to name but a few -- were perpetrated by armed troops against unarmed populations. Many could well have been avoided or mitigated, had the perpetrators known their intended victims were equipped with a rifle and twenty bullets apiece, as the Militia Act required here. (See Kleinfeld Dissent at 5997-99.) If a few hundred Jewish fighters in the Warsaw Ghetto could hold off the Wehrmacht for almost a month with only a handful of weapons, six million Jews armed with rifles could not so easily have been herded into cattle cars.

"My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed -- where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.

...Justice Alex Kozinski, US 9th Circuit Court of Appeals

 

[U201491]

A thread deserving of a rebirth.

 

[Brutus57]

Dmax, you are delusional if you think the prez wouldn't try confiscation with an executive order. Vets are already on the "domestic terrorist possibilities" list. Also note that firearms can be confiscated under " it's for the children's safety" style clause as well. Just recently the government went after firearms that were legally owned in Australia because some of them might not have been "stored safely." And they did indeed confiscate some of them and file charges against heretofore law abiding citizens.
I don't think it's a stretch to foresee our prez coming up with a false flag to start seizing firearms. If NSA is keeping track of our buddy and e-mail lists you can bet someone is tracking and collating firearm transfers, etc.
NSA spying on A,Erica's stateside wasn't a conspiracy theory...it turned put to be fact.
If the direction the liberals want to take this country isn't reversed then you can expect them to keep gunning for the defanging of the Second Amendment. They truly want absolute power and and armed American citizenry is the only thing standing between them declaring their supremacy. If they'll think a baby can be aborted partial birth you really think they will respect your right to protect yourself, you're operate and your loved ones, much less your way of life.
10 years ago I wouldn't have thought we'd be where we are today but there you go.
Brutus out

 

[Stevenav]

There is a level of paranoia that's getting worse and worse out there among gun people and frankly it's pretty disturbing.

Opps just read that this was from 2011... my apologies for comments calling out mister bill I made before the edit here.

But as has been pointed out...this thread was from 2011... and look at the situation... new gun treaties with the UN... lots more pressure on gun control measures... yeah.. history is speaking.

Yes, guns are popular... but let me take a moment to point you at something that you clearly aren't familiar with. History.

Every time there is some "unthinkably impossible event", you will ALWAYS find people that kept saying "Oh that CAN'T happen here!" until it did. As if their reassurances that the unthinkable is just not going to happen has some special providence or force to it because some magical force of logic is keeping it from happening in their sensible and rational world. Well here's a clue, history if CHOCK FULL of insanity and unthinkable events that happened because people didn't take the threat seriously when they should have.

History is less prone to events of 1000 cuts... it IS prone to catastrophic changes spured on by one person or a few people working in consort to effect a change that benefits them.

Events rarely progress slowly slowly slowly throughout their lifespan, instead you get a build up of pressures, and then the changes happen all at once and with sudden alacrity.

WWII, WWI, Civil Rights marches (good), civil wars, wars of independence, coups, the formation of dictatorships, hell Caesar crossing the Rubicon... unthinkable... but it happened!!!. Part of the reason These things happen is because people don't expect them to happen and get lazy or lax or think that it can't happen to them in their nice comfortable little world. Mind you the civil rights marches I simply point out because a lot of people thought that that was never going to happen, it was a part of their world and they couldn't imagine that anyone would force things on them. But it happened... and it happened suddenly, and they were caught off guard by how quickly it happened. That's all. And let's thank God that they were caught off guard. Civil rights is something I am wholeheartedly behind. I simply point it out because it too was (at the time) unthinkable.

Then it happens, and those people are usually the first ones that cry foul because they were so SURE of themselves.

It can happen here, don't think for a minute that it can't.

We have seen the gross militarization of our police forces from what they were when I grew up, to paramilitary thugs today. When I was a kid the very idea that police would shut down a major city like Boston to conduct house to house searches... grossly violating people's rights against illegal search and seizure was unthinkable... today... it's not because it HAPPENED. All of a sudden and without warning.

So, please, stop it. History says you are wrong and history is a much better teacher than any one man or woman. It teaches us what to expect.

 

[U201491]

Keep in mind the thread is from 2011. But much is even more relevant today.