Goin COMMANDO

[Fly Rod]

Thanks to Homeland Security Funding the city has installed cameras through out the city. I can't even pinch the wife's butt while strolling on the promenade along the water front, would get cited for open and gross lewedness.

[Joe]

You know what the local S.W.A.T. teams did at Columbine? Secured the perimeter and waited for the shooting to stop. They just like to wear the stuff and try and convince themselves their bad ass_s. Face it, most cops join for the pension and the detail money - service to others is low on the list.

In Iraq, the Marines kicked in door after door in clearing cities and towns, street-by-street, house by house, all day long, every day for months. And they didn't have half the crap the townie cops who think they're half-a_s ninjas have. All they had was a gun, a flack jacket and pair of balls.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by JohnnyD

Or... and here's a novel concept... they could *refrain* from spending the money.

Our government is like some of my idiot friends that live paycheck to paycheck and then complain about not having any money. 50" LED TVs, going out for dinner 3x/week and driving a new car are not an essential part of living and is why those people don't have any money. Just like APCs, snow cone machines and the millions of other things the government wastes aren't essential for getting their jobs done.

You're not only obviously right, and why anyone would nitpick about why it might or might not be necessary shows how we have come to accept such stuff. The question now seems to be how much or what else rather than how about no, none of it. And very little wondering about why the Federal Government must do it. Here, we're wondering why some police force in a quiet town in nowhere is being armed at great expense when it doesn't seem to need it. One problem with Federal spending is that it is supposed to benefit the entire nation, not just selected locals. So if the Feds are going to arm police in State A, then they should do so in States B-Z. The money spent and the "protection" should be distributed equally. So Podunk Nowhere gets its stuff. Is anyone wondering why the Federal government is, or should it be, arming local police rather than the locality or the State doing so?

[Raven]

[/QUOTE Debutch] does anyone know?

just speculation ...but it seems to me that there's a certain part of the American population
that could suddenly take up arms and try to wage an internal war against the USA....

at that point it's a little to late to say: Hey! we need M16's too!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raven

[/QUOTE Debutch] does anyone know?

just speculation ...but it seems to me that there's a certain part of the American population
that could suddenly take up arms and try to wage an internal war against the USA....

at that point it's a little to late to say: Hey! we need M16's too!

I thought that too. But there's another part of the American population that scoffs at conspiracy thinking. I've already been accused of pontificating--didn't want to sound like a conspiracist as well. But there's also an ominous other side of this. Rather than localities and States being prepared, the Federal Gov. is planning to outgun its own citizens when it already has overwhelming force. Didn't the founders create the Second Ammendment, among other reasons, to protect the citizens from government tyranny? It's been said that one of the first things a dictatorship requires is the disarming of its citizens. I suppose having bigger guns than the citizens can do the job as well. And, since Federal troops are not supposed to be used against the American populace within this country, arming local troops can be a surrogate to the same ends. Is there really a certain portion of Americans that you speak of that want to take up arms against the USA? Or is that portion wanting to take up arms against oppression that threatens what they consider the USA?

I don't think either "threat" is real. But you can see how it can be looked at in more than one way. My pontificatorial opinion is that those at the federal level simply use every opportunity, consciously, unconsciously, beaucratically, or for whatever reason to expand the federal influence, thus its power--which lessens State and local power. I think, especially at this point in time where we are so used, as a population, to viewing more and more problems as a federal issue, I think the feds just naturally do this, and, further, have the excuse that local govts. can't afford what's "necessary," but the Federal Gvt. can--not really since it's already trillions in debt and has no way of ever paying for even larger unfunded mandates--but who cares?

[Raven]

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raven

I notice here that the Federal Gvt. did not step in or supply the better firepower that subdued the well armed robbers. The Constitution does not grant the Federal Gvt. police power, it is reserved, therefore to the States. In article 1, section 8 where it talks about providing for and calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union (Federal and Constutional laws, not local or State laws)--so there is no problem providing the national guard with weapons, but there is no Federal jurisdiction to provide them for local police.

The Federal Government is very jealous of its power. It insists that States do not encroach on that power. It has sued the State of Arizona for trying to assist the Federal Gvt. in finding illegal aliens, even though Congress has provided agencies such as ICE and others to work with local law enforcement. It insists that the States must keep hands off, even though it asks us citizens to be on the alert for terrorists and report any suspect activity that might look like incipient terrorism. But when it comes to encroaching on State and individual rights and powers, the Federal Government has a long, "progressive" tradition of doing so--for our own good.