I think this writer is missing a lot. There certainly are some lo info voters and knee jerk liberals, race pimps, and libertarian extremists who are over selling the militarization angle.
However, there are many limited government conservatives seeing that all of this militarization is making government bigger and more powerful and more intimidating, and likely on purpose. We see that cops are more union oriented and less citizen oriented. We see that police departments and government bureaus have more guns and more armor and more ammo - and more often directed by doctrinaire liberals.
This is what my eyes tell me. This is what Mark Steyn wrote about. I’ll trust my eyes and Steyn over this Nantz guy.
You are being too kind to this this idiot. I can’t believe I have to read this drivel from the Libtard sites but now Townhall?
I watched video of the militarized cops from either the first or second night of the Ferguson trouble. There was a group of semi protesters just standing peacefully on the sidewalks and these cops started pulling up in the combat outfits, jumped out of their ramped up vehicles with tactical weapons and started stalking around. Within a couple of minutes they had basically incited a riot. It was unbelievable.
In addition lets all remember the jumped up combat cops did zippo to stop the looting. Not a thing. Just drove by and let the business owners fend for themselves.
No what the hopped up militarized cops did best was harass and arrest the press and incite the general public to riot.
Consider not only appearances but also terminology. Calling them the city’s “finest” does not make them fine. Calling them “sheepdogs” does not make them sheep if they are in fact wolves in blue clothing. Writing “serve and protect” on their cars does not make them our servants or our protectors.
Why were the founders so afraid of a “standing army?” What did they DO about it? Did it work? What would one look like today, and what would it be called? How would it be justified or excused and would we, or more importantly, could we even DO anything about it?
KEEP IN MIND THOUGH EVENTS THAT ACTUALLY TRANSPIRED IN VENEZUELA SOME 10 YEARS AGO.
LOCAL POLICE DEPARTMENTS IN THE CARACAS AREA WERE VISITED BY THE NATIONAL POLICE FORCE, THE BOLIVARIAN NATIONAL GUARD.
THE NATIONAL GUARD SEIZED ALL HEAVY TACTICAL WEAPONS AND SHOTGUNS FROM THE LOCAL POLICE LEAVING THEM ONLY WITH PISTOLS TO DEAL WITH THE LIKES OF DRUG TRAFFICKERS AND GANGS.
CRIME SKYROCKTED.
THE LOCAL POLICE FORCES WERE CONTROLLED BY LOCAL GOVERNMENTS NOT LOYAL TO HUGO CHAVEZ AND HIS CUBAN COMMUNINIST WANABEES.
WATCH WHERE THIS ARGUMENT AGAINST “MILITARIZED POLICE” MIGHT GO??????
IN VENEZUELA LOCAL POLICE WERE DISARMED SO THEY WOULD NOT BE A THREAT TO CHAVEZ AND HIS COMMUNIST RED SHIRT THUGS...
Militarization starts in the language, not the guns, and this is the trap liberals are setting us up for disarmament.
The police wages politics as an extension of war, and they have been just as disgusting as the looters in that respect, and in fact letting looters loot, not those calling them out on their political methods and warfare on every day people.
I am sick and tired of cops acting cute or special or “brotherhooy”.