A Treatise on the Police State
I recently made a statement in another forum to the effect that I was disgusted by the Police State that America has become. I was challenged on the comment with the following:
2 problems... 1. would you like to be the police? 2. you cannot assume that everyone will make the same decisions as you would especially in dire situations. 3. perhaps you are talking about something else... because it is hard to get on an airplane. in which i agree with you. you cannot make rules against unknowable or on paranoia.
I think these questions provide an especially good opportunity to record some of my thoughts regarding this issue. The Police State has been (and will continue) to be on my mind - probably as a result of the ever-worsening conditions and our ever-eroding liberty.
I'll start with the third point. No, I wasn't referring to some particular symptom of the Police State. I am referring to American society as a whole. We are living in a Police State. There is plenty of opportunity for things to get far worse, but the present reality is that we are not free, and indeed we are increasingly less free. The observation about getting on airplanes is well put. Consider that air travel is merely a template for the rest of society, and you can see where we're headed. Cameras, checkpoints, random searches, biometric IDs, databases, surveillance. I don't think it's really necessary to belabor the point that things are getting worse.
The first numbered issue poses a question: "Would you like to be the police?"
I have two ways in which I will answer this question. Let me first state that I understand that the implied context of this question is, "The job of the police - to serve and protect - is dangerous and requires sacrifice. Would you really want a job where you put your life at stake every time you punch the clock? If you're not willing to do this job, why are you disgusted by those who are?"
Unfortunately, there is no short way to answer this question. I'll begin by stating that the stark reality is that the idea that it is solely the responsibility of the police to protect society is actually a very recent (and most unwelcome) development. (By recent, I mean 'within the last 50 or 60 years.) It's a direct result of the feminist movement's attempt to make the male obsolete. Protection used to be the job of the man. As part of the attempt to prove that the man is unneeded, the feminists have (successfully, I'm afraid) reassigned this responsibility to the State. Whereas it was previously common, accepted, and expected that men would be responsible for the protection of their families and those around them, it is now common, accepted, and expected that everyone should assume complete powerlessness in the presence of any threat and dial 911. Anyone who does otherwise - that is, anyone who takes responsibility for their own safety and well-being - is immediately suspect, subject to investigation for their actions and often labeled a vigilante. The State (by which I mean the police) always officially recommends that the public behave this way (helpless - dial 911), they always discourage the individual from taking responsibility for their own safety, and they always proclaim that they are the Only Ones qualified/properly trained/professional enough to bear arms and protect the people.
And day after day after day they disprove this ridiculous lie.
The underlined text in the above sentence is a link that will provide you hundreds and thousands of pieces of evidence that dismiss the absurd notion that the police are somehow more qualified than you or I to exercise the rights of self-defense and others-defense. These are everyday real-life documented stories taken from the news all around the country. The link will provide you with search results within a specific blog - The War on Guns. David Codrea - the blog's author - keeps a daily eye on the news and reports on these matters. He files each story with the key words 'Only Ones' because that's what the police purport to be - the only ones qualified, trained, etc.
With this in mind, I'll restate (several times) the question - "Would you like to be the police?"
- Would you like to enjoy special rights and priveliges not afforded to the general public?
- Would you like to truly enjoy the right to keep and bear arms - to be able to always carry a gun - especially in situations where the average joe is specifically prohibited from doing so and is therefore specifically vulernable to violent crime?
- Would you like access to firearms, armor, surveillance equipment, non-lethal self defense tools, knives, vehicles, and communications equipment not available to the public?
- Would you like to be exempted (by law) from virtually every prohibition that applies to the public?
- Would you like to have the guarantee that if you engage in criminal activity; negligently kill, injure, harass, intimidate or abuse an innocent person; negligently lose a firearm purchased with public tax dollars, or accidentally kill a co-worker that your name will be withheld from the public?
- Would you like to know that in any of the above situations, you will most likely be 'punished' with a paid vacation known as 'administrative leave.' Further, would you like to enjoy the guarantee that such violations will only be investigated by the same agency that employs you and not by an uninterested third party?
- Would you like to know that if anyone dares cross you, the full fury of the State will come down upon them?
These are just off the top of my head. The Only Ones archives are chocked-full of stories illustrating the fact that the police exist as a separate class of citizenry - above you and I, and not subject to the same laws or restraints that we are. Each story that illustrates the set-apart and protected nature of the police first illustrates that despite all their bluster and claims, they are no different than you or I. In fact, they are statistically far more likely to commit offenses/accidents/suicide with the same firearms that they so fiercely inisist we mere citizens are not qualified to wield.
To address the 2nd enumerated point, "You cannot assume that everyone will make the same decisions as you would especially in dire situations."
I guess my initial reaction is a shrug of the shoulders. Because one citizen cannot adequately protect himself is not a reason to deprive another citizen of his rights. Or perhaps you're wondering, 'But what about the man who is trying to stop a burglar and kills an innocent bystander?' In the first place, the police do that all the time. If you don't believe that statement, I challenge you to take a cursory survey of the link that I provided. It is quite common for the police to accidentally shoot an innocent. In the second place FREEDOM IS NOT SAFE. If we gave unrestricted access to firearms to all individuals who are not locked up in prison (which I strongly advocate) you would still have accidents, suicides, and "gun crimes." I think in the long-run society's restored ability to protect itself would drive down violent crime, but there is no denying that a certain portion of society will always abuse or mistreat the rights afforded to them. But that is not a reason to enslave everyone else.
The cold, harsh, slap-in-the-face truth is that we can trade away our freedom and sacrifice our liberty and give up our rights and we will never be one bit safer for it. The choice is not between freedom and safety.
WE CAN CHOOSE TO BE FREE OR WE CAN CHOOSE TO BE ENSLAVED BY THE STATE.
We are moving rapidly toward the latter option.
2 problems... 1. would you like to be the police? 2. you cannot assume that everyone will make the same decisions as you would especially in dire situations. 3. perhaps you are talking about something else... because it is hard to get on an airplane. in which i agree with you. you cannot make rules against unknowable or on paranoia.
I think these questions provide an especially good opportunity to record some of my thoughts regarding this issue. The Police State has been (and will continue) to be on my mind - probably as a result of the ever-worsening conditions and our ever-eroding liberty.
I'll start with the third point. No, I wasn't referring to some particular symptom of the Police State. I am referring to American society as a whole. We are living in a Police State. There is plenty of opportunity for things to get far worse, but the present reality is that we are not free, and indeed we are increasingly less free. The observation about getting on airplanes is well put. Consider that air travel is merely a template for the rest of society, and you can see where we're headed. Cameras, checkpoints, random searches, biometric IDs, databases, surveillance. I don't think it's really necessary to belabor the point that things are getting worse.
The first numbered issue poses a question: "Would you like to be the police?"
I have two ways in which I will answer this question. Let me first state that I understand that the implied context of this question is, "The job of the police - to serve and protect - is dangerous and requires sacrifice. Would you really want a job where you put your life at stake every time you punch the clock? If you're not willing to do this job, why are you disgusted by those who are?"
Unfortunately, there is no short way to answer this question. I'll begin by stating that the stark reality is that the idea that it is solely the responsibility of the police to protect society is actually a very recent (and most unwelcome) development. (By recent, I mean 'within the last 50 or 60 years.) It's a direct result of the feminist movement's attempt to make the male obsolete. Protection used to be the job of the man. As part of the attempt to prove that the man is unneeded, the feminists have (successfully, I'm afraid) reassigned this responsibility to the State. Whereas it was previously common, accepted, and expected that men would be responsible for the protection of their families and those around them, it is now common, accepted, and expected that everyone should assume complete powerlessness in the presence of any threat and dial 911. Anyone who does otherwise - that is, anyone who takes responsibility for their own safety and well-being - is immediately suspect, subject to investigation for their actions and often labeled a vigilante. The State (by which I mean the police) always officially recommends that the public behave this way (helpless - dial 911), they always discourage the individual from taking responsibility for their own safety, and they always proclaim that they are the Only Ones qualified/properly trained/professional enough to bear arms and protect the people.
And day after day after day they disprove this ridiculous lie.
The underlined text in the above sentence is a link that will provide you hundreds and thousands of pieces of evidence that dismiss the absurd notion that the police are somehow more qualified than you or I to exercise the rights of self-defense and others-defense. These are everyday real-life documented stories taken from the news all around the country. The link will provide you with search results within a specific blog - The War on Guns. David Codrea - the blog's author - keeps a daily eye on the news and reports on these matters. He files each story with the key words 'Only Ones' because that's what the police purport to be - the only ones qualified, trained, etc.
With this in mind, I'll restate (several times) the question - "Would you like to be the police?"
- Would you like to enjoy special rights and priveliges not afforded to the general public?
- Would you like to truly enjoy the right to keep and bear arms - to be able to always carry a gun - especially in situations where the average joe is specifically prohibited from doing so and is therefore specifically vulernable to violent crime?
- Would you like access to firearms, armor, surveillance equipment, non-lethal self defense tools, knives, vehicles, and communications equipment not available to the public?
- Would you like to be exempted (by law) from virtually every prohibition that applies to the public?
- Would you like to have the guarantee that if you engage in criminal activity; negligently kill, injure, harass, intimidate or abuse an innocent person; negligently lose a firearm purchased with public tax dollars, or accidentally kill a co-worker that your name will be withheld from the public?
- Would you like to know that in any of the above situations, you will most likely be 'punished' with a paid vacation known as 'administrative leave.' Further, would you like to enjoy the guarantee that such violations will only be investigated by the same agency that employs you and not by an uninterested third party?
- Would you like to know that if anyone dares cross you, the full fury of the State will come down upon them?
These are just off the top of my head. The Only Ones archives are chocked-full of stories illustrating the fact that the police exist as a separate class of citizenry - above you and I, and not subject to the same laws or restraints that we are. Each story that illustrates the set-apart and protected nature of the police first illustrates that despite all their bluster and claims, they are no different than you or I. In fact, they are statistically far more likely to commit offenses/accidents/suicide with the same firearms that they so fiercely inisist we mere citizens are not qualified to wield.
To address the 2nd enumerated point, "You cannot assume that everyone will make the same decisions as you would especially in dire situations."
I guess my initial reaction is a shrug of the shoulders. Because one citizen cannot adequately protect himself is not a reason to deprive another citizen of his rights. Or perhaps you're wondering, 'But what about the man who is trying to stop a burglar and kills an innocent bystander?' In the first place, the police do that all the time. If you don't believe that statement, I challenge you to take a cursory survey of the link that I provided. It is quite common for the police to accidentally shoot an innocent. In the second place FREEDOM IS NOT SAFE. If we gave unrestricted access to firearms to all individuals who are not locked up in prison (which I strongly advocate) you would still have accidents, suicides, and "gun crimes." I think in the long-run society's restored ability to protect itself would drive down violent crime, but there is no denying that a certain portion of society will always abuse or mistreat the rights afforded to them. But that is not a reason to enslave everyone else.
The cold, harsh, slap-in-the-face truth is that we can trade away our freedom and sacrifice our liberty and give up our rights and we will never be one bit safer for it. The choice is not between freedom and safety.
WE CAN CHOOSE TO BE FREE OR WE CAN CHOOSE TO BE ENSLAVED BY THE STATE.
We are moving rapidly toward the latter option.
posted by M1Thumb at 9:28 PM
2 Comments:
please tell me the last time you had to take the "law" into your own hands.
your sis
shalanah
Tonight. I was driving home from Church and decided not to wear my seat belt. Then I realized that I was taking the law into my own hands and buckled up, lest Big Brother ticket me for my own good.
If you're referring to self-defense, I don't think I really need to provide a firsthand account from my life - firearms are (on average) used about 2 million times per year in self defense (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html)
Post a Comment
<< Home