Constitutionally, this was never supposed to happen. The statists are arming up.

http://freebeacon.com/issues/now-bureaucrats-guns-u-s-marines/

 

I'm shocked and not shocked at the same time. What do you call that?

I can't imagine a better reason to support the 2nd amendment. This is exactly what it was designed to counter.

Scary stuff when the regime seeks to demilitarize and take over local police forces while at the same time raising an army of militarized bureaucrats. This while they identify the biggest threat to the U.S. is people that believe in the Constitution.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...e-federal-drugs-evidence-fbi-column/26830873/
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/201...taking-steps-demilitarize-local-police-forces
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/the-other-terror-threat.html?_r=0

 

Makes you wonder what the bureaucrats are prepping for, doesn't it?

 

Severe paper cuts.

Personally, I'm not all that worried about it. I have many associates who are either active or in reserve military and the overall feelings from them is that the vast majority of our military would not turn on our own people if called to do so by any superior.

Temporarily setting up military law enforcement over a justified scenario such as some major foreign or domestic incident like a large group of nut jobs taking over a city by force is understood as being an acceptable action but taking over every city by our own soldiers and rounding up our own citizens because some beurocrats thought should be done would be viewed as an insane order and thusly rejected and those who gave those orders would be taken out of their positions by any means necessary.

The thing is our military people are not uncaring unthinking machines or zombies. They are by and large some of the most patriotic people our society has and the last thing they will do is take an insane order to turn on their own country en mass with blind eyes and deaf ears over what they were told to do.

They willingly go to other countries knowing they may die just to stop that sort of crap from happening to someone else so why would they go and do it to our own people?

 

The problem is that those armed bureaucrats think civilians are the enemy.

 

I'm shocked and not shocked at the same time. What do you call that?

Jaded? If that's not the right word, I think it's close. We know we SHOULD be shocked, but we've seen this kind of stuff so often and for so long that we just CAN'T be shocked.

The really sad part is that this isn't something that has all of a sudden been uncovered -- people have been shouting this from the rooftops for about a decade.

 

@tcmtech
I think one distinction is that the military are drawn from the ordinary population. They don't have special privileges. Although retirement may be attractive , the salary is not.

On the other hand, the army of the bureaucrats does have privileges and acts that way. Just look at recent incidents with the IRS, EPA, and child welfare agencies to name a few. They have pulled their weapons on ordinary, unarmed Americans. Recent escapades of the Secret Service are particularly scandalous if not salacious acts of privilege.

John

 

The problem is that those armed bureaucrats think civilians are the enemy.

That's why I gladly pay the taxes needed to keep our local police who interact with us as neighbors instead of some distant Metro joint force who would view us as just another crime patrol area.

 

Severe paper cuts.

Personally, I'm not all that worried about it. I have many associates who are either active or in reserve military and the overall feelings from them is that the vast majority of our military would not turn on our own people if called to do so by any superior.

I don't think this discussion is about concerns of the military turning on our own people -- it is about the non-military (and, though not directly mentioned in the article, the non law enforcement agencies) becoming increasingly armed, generally with weapons far outside the scope of what could be considered reasonable for their duties. Historically, if an agency found itself in a position where violence was possible, they called on a suitable agency (the FBI, for instance) or even local law enforcement. For some time now, however, many agencies have been lapping at the trough of weapons and ammo purchases to militarize themselves.

 

That's why I gladly pay the taxes needed to keep our local police who interact with us as neighbors instead of some distant Metro joint force who would view us as just another crime patrol area.

Barney Fife is your sheriff"?

 

Barney Fife is your sheriff"?

There is a sheriff but we have our own police chief and local officers.

I think Barney finally retired.

 

Barney Fife is your sheriff"?

Re:nsaspook
I lived in Baltimore during the 60's and early 70's. That was the last time I ever saw a cop walking a beat. Some were real artists with their nightsticks (batons). They would talk with you and even give advice on things like the best place to park and other safety stuff. They did stupid stuff too, like when two cruisers responding to a robbery at an IHOP came from opposite directions and wiped each other out. Despite that. they were not viewed by most of us as anything to fear. They clearly were there to help and protect.

It is much different today. The only cop I have seen in my Cleveland neighborhood is in a cruiser. Out at the farm, all I see are armed park rangers (why are they armed in the ordinary course of their work?) and State Troopers giving speeding tickets.

John

 

I know I'll likely be flamed for this, but how come all the strict constitutionalists, conveniently ignore the first half of the second amendment that states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." when they talk about their 2nd amendment rights.
So if they want to buy all the assault rifles, bazookas, or whatever other military weapons you want, then they should be a member of a well regulated state Militia, not just anyone who happens to want those weapons. To me that's the intent of the first half of the 2nd amendment. What's your interpretation?

Just to be clear, I'm not against the second amendment, and think people have the right to weapons for self-protection and hunting, but I don't think assault rifles with large ammo clips fall into either category.
Just because assault rifles may be considered neat or fun to have doesn't justify their purchase by virtually everyone, considering there purpose is to efficiently kill as many people as rapidly as possible, which has been sadly shown in several of our recent terrorist mass murders

And if you are so paranoid that you think you need an assault rifle to protect yourself from the government (good luck with that), then I have no answer for that, but you should probably go join some survivalist group somewhere who share your paranoia.

 

And if you are so paranoid that you think you need an assault rifle to protect yourself from the government (good luck with that), then I have no answer for that, but you should probably go join some survivalist group somewhere who share your paranoia.

I'm not paranoid. I have enough guns that I don't have to be.

 

I know I'll likely be flamed for this, but how come all the strict constitutionalists, conveniently ignore the first half of the second amendment that states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." when they talk about their 2nd amendment rights.
So if they want to buy all the assault rifles, bazookas, or whatever other military weapons you want, then they should be a member of a well regulated state Militia, not just anyone who happens to want those weapons. To me that's the intent of the first half of the 2nd amendment. What's your interpretation?

Just to be clear, I'm not against the second amendment, and think people have the right to weapons for self-protection and hunting, but I don't think assault rifles with large ammo clips fall into either category.
Just because assault rifles may be considered neat or fun to have doesn't justify their purchase by virtually everyone, considering there purpose is to efficiently kill as many people as rapidly as possible, which has been sadly shown in several of our recent terrorist mass murders

And if you are so paranoid that you think you need an assault rifle to protect yourself from the government (good luck with that), then I have no answer for that, but you should probably go join some survivalist group somewhere who share your paranoia.

Maybe because you didn't read the original drafts of the Constitution, which the SCOTUS did in deciding that gun ownership was an individual right. Further, it is very clear both from the Declaration of Independence and transcripts/drafts from the Constitutional Convention that the right to revolt against an oppressive government was intended. The right to be protected if you lost was not.

John

 

Temporarily setting up military law enforcement over a justified scenario such as some major foreign or domestic incident like a large group of nut jobs taking over a city by force

Can you say Cleveland, Oh in July?

 

@crutschow
By the way, you misquote the 2nd Amendment. The most widely accepted version is: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The word "state" is not capitalized, so it means something quite different from State.

@shortbus
That is something no one looks forward too. Fortunately, the arena is very close to a Level 1 trauma center (Metro Hospital).

John

 

It is and always has been a mentality issue. Note I didn't use the term mental.

 

I know I'll likely be flamed for this, but how come all the strict constitutionalists, conveniently ignore the first half of the second amendment that states "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." when they talk about their 2nd amendment rights.
So if they want to buy all the assault rifles, bazookas, or whatever other military weapons you want, then they should be a member of a well regulated state Militia, not just anyone who happens to want those weapons. To me that's the intent of the first half of the 2nd amendment. What's your interpretation?

Just to be clear, I'm not against the second amendment, and think people have the right to weapons for self-protection and hunting, but I don't think assault rifles with large ammo clips fall into either category.
Just because assault rifles may be considered neat or fun to have doesn't justify their purchase by virtually everyone, considering there purpose is to efficiently kill as many people as rapidly as possible, which has been sadly shown in several of our recent terrorist mass murders

And if you are so paranoid that you think you need an assault rifle to protect yourself from the government (good luck with that), then I have no answer for that, but you should probably go join some survivalist group somewhere who share your paranoia.

I and others have addressed your question before.

The term "well-regulated", as used in the century before and after the U.S. Constitution was written, was in common usage and meant "well functioning" -- it did NOT mean having a bunch of laws and regulations controlling it. Also, the "militia" did NOT just refer to state militias, neither then nor now. In both cases the militia encompassed both the "organized militia" and the "unorganized militia". The unorganized militia consists of all able-bodied male citizens, with specific exceptions, between the ages of 17 and 45 who are not members of the active armed forces. At the time of the Constitution, it was all able-bodied while males between the ages of 18 and 45, again with some specific exceptions.

But all of that is beside the point. The first part of the sentence may provide an explanation, but it is the second part of the sentence that provides the prohibition. It could have easily said, "A bunch of armed dude being necessary to protect us from space aliens, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It doesn't matter what justification is or isn't given, if you want to get rid of the prohibition, you need to repeal it. If you want to use the argument that the justification given is no longer valid (or that it never was valid), fine. Use that to convince people to repeal it. But until repealed, it IS the prohibition that is in place.

If you want to talk about strict contructionalism, the Constitution specifically prohibits a standing army (and specifically provides for a standing navy). The mechanism for enforcing this is that no Appropriation for the raising and supporting armies can last more than two years (and, again, no such limitation is placed on the navy). The Founding Fathers saw a standing federal army as being as much a threat to the liberty of a free state as a protector of it. At the time, not having a standing army and relying on calling up militia components was practical. Of course, that is no longer the case. But instead of properly amending the Constitution to reflect the changing realities, to this day the Army (and now the Air Force) go through reauthorizations every two years (at most) to meet the strict interpretation of the Constitution while committing wholesale violation of the intent.

 

Just to be clear, I'm not against the second amendment, and think people have the right to weapons for self-protection and hunting, but I don't think assault rifles with large ammo clips fall into either category.

Real assault rifles (full-auto) make great hunting rifles. http://www.helibacon.com/