That MIAC Report gave me a severe case of déjà vu. If the description of the tone of the report is accurate (and I no reason to doubt that it is), the underlying assumption(s) made by the writer about the supposed subject comes as absolutely NO surprise to me.
Having spent almost three years, in an official capacity, in (very) close proximity to federal law enforcement agents, I came away with the following conclusion:
Here's the impression I got after watching these organizations: Your average "cop" holds everyone who isn't a cop--and even other cops who are not in his organization--with a somewhat (but not always) mild form of contempt. If the conditions are right (like measures of merit in direct conflict), it's with barely disguised hostility. USAF ALOs--you know what I mean... Often this is understandable since what one law enforcement agency gets kudos for may get their more undercover-oriented counterparts tortured and killed. And it hardens you.
It REALLY opened my eyes, and made me a helluva lot more nervous about the domestic threat to my liberties than I was before I started doing that *koff* consulting work. Don’t get me wrong. These guys--(I didn’t do any work with female agents--are not bad folks, and they all were willing to lay down their lives to keep the domestic wolves at bay. But the work makes you cynical, and it’s hard not to begin to think that everybody else is a wolf.
Granted, I'm a little more sensitive to the threat than most since I have always been interested in the Founders' underlying philosophies as they conceived this nation and its original Constitution...and studied why they said what they said in that document.
They knew better than anyone before or since that Government is a shove in the back.
It does not request. It demands.
It does not trust. It suspects.
The Leviathan they suffered under, first hand, is just that; a great beast against which the citizenry must be forever wary. For the most part, the State (capital "S") has a monopoly on force, and we all know how bad monopolies are. But 99% isn't 100% and, frankly, I'd like to see it a lot more balanced between police and civilians.
Question: Why do we keep seeing a bleacher-full of uniformed peace officers perched quietly behind some liberal Democrat's podium as the latter bloviates on why we should re-impose the "assault weapon" ban, or restrict access to ammunition, or impose draconian (if not unconstitutional) handgun ownership laws at the state and local level and/or otherwise further restrict the Peoples' Right to Keep and Bear Arms?
Based on my experience most police, after too long a time in the force and after too much exposure to those who don't reflect the vast majority of decent, law-abiding citizens, would prefer the 100% solution. It makes their job easier and safer...but, I firmly believe, the rest of us much less safe.
Having spent almost three years, in an official capacity, in (very) close proximity to federal law enforcement agents, I came away with the following conclusion:
Here's the impression I got after watching these organizations: Your average "cop" holds everyone who isn't a cop--and even other cops who are not in his organization--with a somewhat (but not always) mild form of contempt. If the conditions are right (like measures of merit in direct conflict), it's with barely disguised hostility. USAF ALOs--you know what I mean... Often this is understandable since what one law enforcement agency gets kudos for may get their more undercover-oriented counterparts tortured and killed. And it hardens you.
It REALLY opened my eyes, and made me a helluva lot more nervous about the domestic threat to my liberties than I was before I started doing that *koff* consulting work. Don’t get me wrong. These guys--(I didn’t do any work with female agents--are not bad folks, and they all were willing to lay down their lives to keep the domestic wolves at bay. But the work makes you cynical, and it’s hard not to begin to think that everybody else is a wolf.
Granted, I'm a little more sensitive to the threat than most since I have always been interested in the Founders' underlying philosophies as they conceived this nation and its original Constitution...and studied why they said what they said in that document.
They knew better than anyone before or since that Government is a shove in the back.
It does not request. It demands.
It does not trust. It suspects.
The Leviathan they suffered under, first hand, is just that; a great beast against which the citizenry must be forever wary. For the most part, the State (capital "S") has a monopoly on force, and we all know how bad monopolies are. But 99% isn't 100% and, frankly, I'd like to see it a lot more balanced between police and civilians.
Question: Why do we keep seeing a bleacher-full of uniformed peace officers perched quietly behind some liberal Democrat's podium as the latter bloviates on why we should re-impose the "assault weapon" ban, or restrict access to ammunition, or impose draconian (if not unconstitutional) handgun ownership laws at the state and local level and/or otherwise further restrict the Peoples' Right to Keep and Bear Arms?
Based on my experience most police, after too long a time in the force and after too much exposure to those who don't reflect the vast majority of decent, law-abiding citizens, would prefer the 100% solution. It makes their job easier and safer...but, I firmly believe, the rest of us much less safe.
Dusty you say "cop" but I'm thinking "military person" is as much a driver for this as cop... no?
I can echo much of what MCart says about local LEOs and their views, and I figure I'll get flack from both sides - for not defending it or not attacking hard enough, but the fact is the middle is where I reside, looking at both sides. To several of my confrere's despair... Anyway - here's what MCart had to say:
While individual officers may each have their own set of beliefs that may differ, they show up and sit behind these politicians that their "collective bargaining" organizations are supporting.