Steven Lynes got a letter published in The Lompoc Record decrying the increasing militarization of the police.
Naturally, the authoritah worshipers are aghast.
Feel free to go on over and offer your insights.
Click here.
You don't even need to register.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
12 comments:
Done, but the parasites and vermin have him surrounded.
I have relatives in that area. You might be surprised at some of them, Kent. Not all of the people in California are parasites. Those have to feed off someone...
Of course, I'm working hard to get as many of the good folks as possible to come to Wyoming.
LOL
I was talking about the commenters, not necessarily the people who live in California. My favorite sister lives in Los Angeles, of all places. And she won't come out! (Well, she "came out" in a different way, but that isn't what I'm talking about.)
Text of my response below. (Well, this is actually a superset of what appears over there. Their client-side wordcounter apparently does not agree with their server-side wordcounter.)
Also, echoing ML: I have been continually astonished to find real human beings in the most unlikely of places. The best "hope 'n' change" out there may be that which most people don't even know exists.
_________________________
It is continually disheartening to see the American spirit of questioning "authority" under reactionary attack, by those claiming to be American in spirit.
Here, from the comments, the nature of the attacks against Lynes appears to be nothing more than, simply, "thou shalt not question the police". Somehow, regular people simply must not possess the super-secret ninja mojo that is magically conferred upon their betters upon assuming the mantle of state authority. The message is: shut up and stop being an uppity peasant.
Lynes is actually much gentler on the subject of official abuse of authority than I would be. Such is growing more frequent and more violent, and the attitude of the state is ever more unified that it is above its own laws. We have seen this kind of thing in history many times before; it is a path that does not end well.
One commenter conjectures that people "complain because they are not doing enough and complain when they are". Even if this is true, it fails to recognize that these are rarely the same people. "We" are not of a single mind here. Those who would outsource their own security should have a right to do so, VOLUNTARILY--and they must be willing to accept the consequences that come with such a Faustian pact. (One would think that these folks would be more, not less, critical of those they authorize to conduct lethal violence in their name, but apparently not.)
The problem, of course, as with everything in government, is that the state does not allow you to "opt out" if you would prefer to take care of yourself. Some of us are quite willing to go it on our own in preference to being forced to defer to the increasingly power-mad, "I'm up here, you're down here" types that long ago chose the path of enforcement rather than peacekeeping.
But we don't get that choice, because the state refuses to work that way. The best we can do is to try and disassociate our names from theirs, and one might understand if Lynes does not feel right about a government agency requesting military hardware for use against its own citizens, in his name.
And with his money.
(What, you think taxes are optional?)
My personal opinion is that every firearm should be sold with a 'suppressor'.
No tax stamp needed, and a permit require to shoot without suppressor.
Noise pollution destroys hearing.
my comment:
can't say i see much wrong with the possession of suppressors or sniper rifles by government officials of any stripe. how about giving them to "peace officers" too? or just licensed drivers?
heck, let's let 8th graders who can show us a straight-A report card buy some.
whether you're gonna go around murdering people in middle-of-the-night raids for fun and profit or for the state and "revenue," i'd like to get my beauty sleep, thank you very much.
and if you're not committing murder of some form, what's the big deal with doing whatever you're doing with a suppressed sound pressure level?
you ever even stand next to someone emptying a rifle magazine full of .223 or .308 without ear protection on? go try it. then tell me what you think you know about suppressors.
now you wanna argue about "PUBLIC FUNDS" and where they should be spent, you got a right to do that. but these are CHARITABLE DONATIONS we're talking about, which says to me what you got there is a VOLUNTEER police force. it's no more your business what goes on their muzzles than any government's business what goes on ours.
Thanks to everyone who responded!
My daughter & son graduate in a few more years and then I am Wyoming bound!!!
And I agree with Anonymous that "every firearm should be sold with a 'suppressor'. No tax stamp needed...Noise pollution destroys hearing."
My 40 db of hearing loss due to 15 years in the Arty will attest to that!
Thanks again!
My 40 db of hearing loss due to 15 years in the Arty will attest to that!
155 will do it!
My response to the idiots:
" People who have decided to allow the police fight the "war against crime" however and with whatever the police wish are in the same class with the old German who decided to let Hitler run the government in any way he saw fit "as long as he didn't tell me how to make my sausage".
Police officers are civilians, not soldiers, no matter how they may choose to "serve and protect" the sheeple. As civilians, a police officer has no more right to possess full auto weapons, sound suppressors, or other weapons prohibited to "civilians" as does any other civilian.
Remember; the bad guy, the police sniper has to take out, will not hear the shot that kills him. No need for a suppressor. "
Dave wrote on Sep 30, 2009 6:28 AM:
" Mr. Lynes,
Spot on! The problem we face is this: escalation. It's a vicious cycle, and it won't stop until all are dead. Here's how it works. The criminals step up to pistols from revolvers, so the police get extended magazines (which the criminals can get even if they're illegal to law abiding citizens), so the law enforcement gets submachine guns, and then the criminals get assault rifles, then the police get sniper rifles, then the crooks get grenades...etc. The best way to stop the criminals is for all the law abiding citizens to GROW A PAIR and fight for your own safety. This nanny BS is awful. Relying on the police is like relying on the garbage collector to prevent trash from ever happening. What do police do? They clean up messes. The only crimes prevented by police are the ones committed on them.
We need police. They are VERY important. But we need police who obey the laws as well as keep them. If it's illegal to own silencers for everyone else, it should be illegal for police also...see how fast the laws change. See how much crime falls and how much safer people actually are.
For all of you like bd (big dufus?): Officers who are worried about their safety need protective gear, not concealing gear. They are not forward operatives, they are grunts.
For all of you like Not Soldiers: The Lompoc PD is MAKING IT YOUR BUSINESS BY SOLICITING YOU FOR MONEY. IT IS YOUR BUSINESS YOU IDIOT. "
They are still at it. Here is the most recent comment
"...The police should be allowed any type of weapons they may need to keep them safe, along with the community. I don't know if any of you small minded people remember what happen about six months ago up in Oakland the police where making just a "routine" traffic stop and are dead because of it..."
Apparently they still don't seem to understand the difference between sound suppressors and defensive weapons.
Thanks again to everyone who had my back on this, you guys are AWESOME!!!
Post a Comment