US Politics: I am a blatant racist and that will give unfair advantages to minorities or something

[sologdin]

heh. not everyone.

[Istakhr]

While I think ideally in any country, a demilitarized police should be the goal, including a police force without firearms, you can't just disarm the police without first creating a situation in society where a less militarized police is still effective by decreasing income inequality, effective rehabilitation programs for lawbreakers and implementing other measures including civilian fire arms restrictions.

I think the Bundy situation and the failure of the US law enforcement to enforce the law due to militia involvement in his case shows that US needs a more militarized law enforcement not less. I would probably start with handing over the extra, left over armored vehicles from middle eastern wars to federal law enforcement agencies and if militia movement continues to grow start thinking about using armed drones for extra support.

When your law enforcement can't enforce your laws due to being outgunned, you have to accept more militarization or you'll end up in a lawless state run by private militias and gangs like so many african countries.

[Altherion]

I think the Bundy situation and the failure of the US law enforcement to enforce the law due to militia involvement in his case shows that US needs a more militarized law enforcement not less. I would probably start with handing over the extra, left over armored vehicles from middle eastern wars to federal law enforcement agencies and if militia movement continues to grow start thinking about using armed drones for extra support.

Absolutely not. Neither the police nor federal law enforcement agencies should be armed heavily enough to singlehandedly deal with a militia. This is not their job. Furthermore, I think you are misjudging the current situation. The reason the BLM left is not because they were outgunned. They could have requisitioned more than enough firepower from other agencies to deal with this. However, if they did that and slaughtered this militia, a thousand others would take its place (and our government would look terrible). It's not worth some grazing land or whatever it was they were fighting over.

[Jon Sprunk]

This is what you stated:

Perhaps we should stop all the bullshit and simply declare whether or not we believe that the Bill of Rights applies to all Americans or only to those who's opinions corresponds to our own? When I hear folks talk about stopping peaceful protests outside abortion clinics or fail to condemn 'free speach zones' my heckles are raised.

This is my question to you:

Grumdin,

Do you honestly not understand that every right has limitations, including the Bill of Rights?

I wasn't delberately deflecting your question rather you failed to define what you think reasonable limitations on free speech should be? I take it you advocate something broader than stopping someone falsely shouting fire in a movie theatre?

I bring up the Brundy ranch because in that situation the Federal Gov set up a small area which they designated as a 1st Ammendment, or free speech, zone. To protest outside that area, or even to take a picture or video, invited summary arrest.

The entire bolded sction above is another deflection. My question did not require a definition of "reasonable limitation," only that you accept or reject that constitutional rights have limitations at all.

If you accept that rights have limits, then we're just haggling over where to draw the line. In which case, we might discover that the fed govt acted in a perfectly reasonable manner considering the circumstances (or not).

[Istakhr]

Absolutely not. Neither the police nor federal law enforcement agencies should be armed heavily enough to singlehandedly deal with a militia. This is not their job. Furthermore, I think you are misjudging the current situation. The reason the BLM left is not because they were outgunned. They could have requisitioned more than enough firepower from other agencies to deal with this. However, if they did that and slaughtered this militia, a thousand others would take its place (and our government would look terrible). It's not worth some grazing land or whatever it was they were fighting over.

First of all, with a properly configured armored vehicle, there wouldn't be a bloodbath. They could use water canons, mixed with pepper spray or tear gas to disperse the militia while being protected from the militia firing bullets at them.

Also I don't agree with the sentiment that small laws are not worth protecting under these circumstances. Here the goal wasn't breaking the US law but breaking the US system of laws, which they were successful in. The federal officers withdrawal sends a signal that if you have enough armed right wing nut jobs backing you up, you can break the law without consequence.

Where do you think it is appropriate for government to draw the line? If they refused to pay any taxes? Is it ok if they take over a federal building next time like Ukraine or bomb it like Oklahoma City? Or if they burn a cross on some black guy's front porch? Or when they bomb an abortion clinic or lynch somebody?

[Galactus]

Absolutely not. Neither the police nor federal law enforcement agencies should be armed heavily enough to singlehandedly deal with a militia. This is not their job.

More seriously, whose job is it? The military?

[Ramsay Gimp]

More so? I don't see how. Seems to me both are in a general response to the idea of Islamic terrorism after 9/11. Militia units to resist the Muslim (and now Communist/Socialist/Marxist) invasion, federal units to do the same but also with the constant understanding that the second amendment is there so people can always violently revolt against the government. You paint it as the militia are responding to federal incursion (which is always, and always has been, their story, quite before there a Railroad Retirement SWAT unit) when it may just as easily be the other way around. Particularly since domestic terrorism *is* a thing.

More so because a government that is this obsessed with airport security, that arms its railroad, environmental, and school agencies, empowers the NSA to such a degree, etc, etc is clearly guilty of paranoia on a much larger scale. I also admit that I am just more sympathetic to the militia's fears (oppressive or intrusive government) than the government's (muslims! militia radicals!)

Could you clarify how you think they are "both in response to Islamic terrorism"? As in, do you think the "militias" are responding directly to that fear ( as in they fear Islamic terrorists) or indirectly (they fear the govt's response to Islamic terrorists)?

Perhaps. Commodore's link is hardly the first I've seen of this, and we've been reading that journalist (Balko?) on the board for some time. The recently departed Tormund Midgetsbane would quote him. I admit it seems really weird. I am not super paranoid about government and its monopoly of force, but I concede that events on the ground could change in a way that could change me.

But the timing is kind of weird with this Bundy guy. For all of what I just said, this guy seems like he really was just off in utter lunatic territory. He really was fucking with the law in all kind of ways. That's not analagous to an armed gov't unit just rolling into someone's home because their family member is maybe in debt or something.

I agree, Bundy probably didn't handle this the best way, even though he appears to have been somewhat successful so far. I just have even less sympathy for his enemies (armed agents of the state, enforcing a land claim I think is bullshit) than I do for him

I think parts of the whole rancher issue is blown somewhat out of proportion. I have a great deal of sympathy for the rancher himself, and to be honest I feel a person would have to be rather callous not to feel sympathy here. The rancher's entire livelihood, his act of life and his family history, one could say his core identity, is coming to an end. He's fought it and failed. Legally he has no leg to stand on but it's hard to give up when the choice is to leave behind everything that makes you you. So he refuses. Had I been in his situation I might have done the same. Knowing it's wrong, even illegal, it would still be hard not to.

This is actually pretty insightful. Agree or not, approve or not, one can understand why someone would choose to dig their heels in rather than submit.

Absolutely not. You can say the majority of them are non-violent and espouse no racial ideology, but it's bullshit. The militia movement is tied to white supremacy and the hysterical mentality that white people are under siege in this country, and this is the strain of thinking that gave us McVeigh and Oklahoma City. It's a bunch of crazy people getting together with guns and, if they do anything, it's going to be to hurt people.

That National Review article is a joke. The Department of Education has a "SWAT Team"? Support the militias! Obama withdraws from Iraq and Afghanistan? Immoral!

Law enforcement, the military, and the overall national security apparatus of this country has gotten way out of control- but it gets the attention of the National Review when the FDA gets involved. I'm going to go ahead and say there are far bigger issues than the DoE or FDA having law enforcement branches, which are just absurd symptoms of national security bloat, and not the actual problem. But what do the rightwing scare mongers peddle to rile up batshit militia men? Some jackass who refused to recognize the Federal government and pay some fees and, hey, did you hear that the FDA has a SWAT team? Give me a break. The right wing and the militia gets outraged over police and national security abuses only when it affects a very specific type of person, they're perfectly content for state power to be used against the less worthy types.

Sorry, that's just inaccurate. McVeigh always explicitly denied that race had anything to do with his attack, and there is no evidence he was lying. In fact, something that is often swept under the rug in regards to his actions is that they were partly in response to the first Gulf War (which he viewed as unjust), not just Waco. As in, sympathy for the Arabs he was sent to kill.

As for the broader militia movement, of course there are some "ties" to white supremacy because there a myriad of groups. But most espouse nothing about race in their official creeds (the Aryan Nation and such is not what I'm talking about when I say "militia"), and you know no more about their inner hearts than I do.

Finally, who cares if National Review is hypocritical and partisan? I have no argument there, but that's not the discussion. The militia movement and anti-government sentiment did not begin with Obama

[BloodRider]

Obviously you're not against the militarization of LEOs when they're deployed against folk you dislike for ideological reasons. Say for instance when the BLM deploys hundreds of agents armed with full auto rifles against a few cowboys who committed the unpardonable sin of impacting on a slow moving reptile/failing to pay fees/interfering in a Senator's real estate deals.

Equally the right has no ground to walk on when THEY failed to speak up when the occupiers where being tased/pepper sprayed/beaten the crap out off by our body armor wearing constabulary for having the gall to exercise their 1st ammendment rights.

Perhaps we should stop all the bullshit and simply declare whether or not we believe that the Bill of Rights applies to all Americans or only to those who's opinions corresponds to our own? When I hear folks talk about stopping peaceful protests outside abortion clinics or fail to condemn 'free speach zones' my heckles are raised.

heh. not everyone.

True dat. And there are many assumptions here that if you are not for limiting the Govt in all ways, then you are necessarily all about expanding the power of the Govt in every way possible. Not true, but a convenient position to take. Especially when neither facts or logic or science or policy support your opinions.

[Ramsay Gimp]

CD,

Politics, outside of discussions of first principles, is really boring. Always talking about the horse race is particularly dull.

Amen.

I'd rather we all just accepted rule-based utilitarianism and moved on to debating policy. I find first principles even more boring than the horse race.

These threads would benefit enormously from an influx of charts and graphics.

No, they wouldn't. I'm enjoying the break from the usual technocratic snooze-fest

I'm with Galactus on this. No, the dictionary definition of states' rights is not "racism", but the former is used so often as a stalking horse to mask the latter that stated concern about states' rights should be subject to the strictest level of scrutiny.

Hmm. So when I voted to legalize Cannabis (I live in WA state) I was actually just being racist?

The "codespeak" you guys see everywhere comes off as rather paranoid

And of course, the best way to ensure a demilitarization of the police force would be effective gun control, but try to tell that to them :P

Incredibly naive.

You're seriously defending Timothy McVeigh? What the fuck is wrong with you?

He's a rather interesting individual, actually, with some redeeming qualities. My own opinion on his actions would be considerably more sympathetic had he just chosen his target better.

And like with Bundy, his (heinous) crime pales in comparison the the crimes of the State and its leaders

[Jon Sprunk]

Finally, who cares if National Review is hypocritical and partisan? I have no argument there, but that's not the discussion. The militia movement and anti-government sentiment did not begin with Obama

True. And yet, there has be a massive rise in militia and hate groups since 2008...

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/03/07/10602763-election-economy-spark-explosive-growth-of-militias

[Altherion]

Where do you think it is appropriate for government to draw the line? If they refused to pay any taxes? Is it ok if they take over a federal building next time like Ukraine or bomb it like Oklahoma City? Or if they burn a cross on some black guy's front porch? Or when they bomb an abortion clinic or lynch somebody?

I'm pretty sure that none of those would be tolerated. I can't tell you where the line will be drawn -- it depends on who is leading the federal government at the time. However, such incidents have happened before (e.g. the Whiskey Rebellion and Fries's Rebellion) and they've been handled without a heavily armed police.

More seriously, whose job is it? The military?

The National Guard. This is a militia that is mainly answerable to its state, but can also be called up by federal authorities in an emergency.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I agree, Bundy probably didn't handle this the best way, even though he appears to have been somewhat successful so far. I just have even less sympathy for his enemies (armed agents of the state, enforcing a land claim I think is bullshit) than I do for him

This is actually pretty insightful. Agree or not, approve or not, one can easily empathize with Bundy.

I wouldn't define this as anything more than a pyrrhic success to this point. All Bundy has done is insured that when he is eventually arrested, his punishment will be ten times worse than it would've been had he simply complied.

And I couldn't disagree more to the second point. This guy is a millionaire rancher. He could've settled this debt monetarily or taken the hit of having part of his herd confiscated, and still have stayed in business. I'm supposed to empathize with a (relatively) successful squatter? Not feeling it.

[Ramsay Gimp]

I wouldn't define this as anything more than a pyrrhic success to this point. All Bundy has done is insured that when he is eventually arrested, his punishment will be ten times worse than it would've been had he simply complied.

And I couldn't disagree more to the second point. This guy is a millionaire rancher. He could've settled this debt monetarily or taken the hit of having part of his herd confiscated, and still have stayed in business. I'm supposed to empathize with a (relatively) successful squatter? Not feeling it.

Yea, on second thought I'm going to edit that second part. "Easily empathize" isn't really what I was looking for

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

And like with Bundy, his (heinous) crime pales in comparison the the crimes of the State and its leaders

Wow. I'm not saying our Government hasn't killed children, but paled? Blowing up pre-schoolers is about as low as it gets in my book.

[Fez]

No, they wouldn't. I'm enjoying the break from the usual technocratic snooze-fest

Technocracy is the engine of democracy. A well-informed, knowledgable electorate ignores demagogues and votes with their critical thinking skills.

[White Walker Texas Ranger]

Technocracy is the engine of democracy. A well-informed, knowledgable electorate ignores demagogues and votes with their critical thinking skills.

When did that ever happen?

[Ramsay Gimp]

Wow. I'm not saying our Government hasn't killed children, but paled? Blowing up pre-schoolers is about as low as it gets in my book.

I meant the scale of it. Also, not that it justifies his actions, but it's worth noting that McVeigh didn't know about the daycare.

Technocracy is the engine of democracy. A well-informed, knowledgable electorate ignores demagogues and votes with their critical thinking skills.

But technocracy leaves out so much, and usually operates within very narrow assumptions. There's plenty of critical thinking going on here without graphs or charts

[Istakhr]

The National Guard. This is a militia that is mainly answerable to its state, but can also be called up by federal authorities in an emergency.

Unless you are in the middle of or want to create a new civil war National Guard is useless for this kind of thing. What are they going to do against a mixed mob of unarmed women and children mixed with armed men? Shoot them and make them instant martyrs? Not shoot them and be overrun and shot themselves? Or just leave them alone and let the country slides into anarchy?

Just look at Ukraine and see how effective these tactics are against both normal police and military. You need a heavily armed militarized police using an updated version of anti riot tactics against armed mobs not a military response.

[Ramsay Gimp]

When your law enforcement can't enforce your laws due to being outgunned, you have to accept more militarization or you'll end up in a lawless state run by private militias and gangs like so many african countries.

Except this wasn't the situation at all. The Federal LEOs could have easily outgunned and slaughtered the Bundy supporters, they chose (wisely) chose not to go that route. If it came to blows there was never any question who would "win"

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

I meant the scale of it. Also, not that it justifies his actions, but it's worth noting that McVeigh didn't know about the daycare.

Don't buy that for a second. He would have had to been incredible ignorant not to have studied the building he was bombing. Timothy McVeigh was a lot of things, but stupid wasn't one of them.