556,
I see your points, they are very logical, but I was thinking about the Little Rock Nine where federal troops were sent to intervene with the NG, and couldn't help but ponder what would have happened if the two branches were under the same umbrella. I know, this situation is totally bassackwards from your concerns, but I think the potential for a totalitarian takeover is present, under the guise of "protection" and "security."
As much as it may pain me and others to hear, we need liberals, the ACLU, and those who would oppose the system to call for all that noise they yell about.
Another concern I have with militarizing law enforcement stems from a conversation with an LEO buddy of mine about why they don't equip themselves for high risk encounters. He said that the psychological aspect of a clean, professional looking enforcer calms [law abiding] folks, and that the militaristic load out of the SWAT guys would scare people into thinking something is wrong, and that it is not safe to go outside. That is the effect the SWAT guys WANT to project, that when you see men with big toys, don't go outside.
I digress. It is interesting that Europe's most liberal nations have mandatory service for men at a certain age and health, which to me is remarkable, but then again these are small countries with almost no hard line foreign policy (and no means to enforce such a policy). To them, deploying is a non-issue; their countries aren't willing to send their troops anywhere, and neither is their people. If we end up with a mindset like that, conscription would be at least plausible. I'm sure members of this board who are citizens in said countries could expand or correct me on this issue.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 5.56X45mm You cannot live in a open society and be safe 100%. |
True, but what is the cost for security? Ben Franklin once said, "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty nor security." Take, for example, the Reichstag Fire in Germany (1933), and how that enabled the then-Chancellor Adolf Hitler to seize power from the people without a whisper of sedition. Why wasn't there a civil war? Hitler, being a charismatic speaker, illicited fear from the people about the commie pukes who burned down the central government building, and quickly passed the Enabling Act to allow liberties to be taken away and securty emplaced. He had an ulterior motive, and thus the invasion of Poland sparked WWII. Think how this situation parallels what we are facing today (and have faced in the past 5 years), and how a Nazi-esque society was averted.
I should really stop drinking 20oz Seattle's Best white chocolate mochas at 0200.