Slow loss of personal liberty and the rise of the police state

[UKHistory]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Sad article that leaves me somber. It would be a lot better if my title didn't make look like an illiterate fool.

[jazyd]

Sad indeed

[KeithKSR]

I wouldn't consider it a slow loss, I would consider it to be like a snowball that is rolling downhill and has now reached a startling speed.

[CitizenBBN]

Haven't gotten to finish the whole article, but I agree completely and like Keith see it as rapidly gaining speed.

Part of it goes to my comments about the ABC agents having guns. Why does the Dept. of Education have any weapons of any kind much less a SWAT team? They enforce paper regulations and are not authorized to use the most egregious force of all, the physical force of arms, to compel anyone to do anything. The size of the part of government that is armed and can use force to compel citizens to comply with its will should be as small as possible and given as much oversight as possible. If the Dept. of Education has a situation that compels use of physical force it has become a matter for the FBI or state or local police to enforce. They don't get to decide to go arrest someone.

That spreading of power throughout every part of government bureaucracy, esp. at the federal level, is deeply troubling. The creation of the FBI itself was worrisome b/c prior to that there was NO federal "police force". It was up to the states and the feds had to get the state and local police to enforce its laws. An excellent check on those federal laws was it not? Yes it had real problems at times when states refused to comply with laws we wanted enforced, but put that up against having dozens of federal agencies armed and enforcing the "law" as they see fit. I say "law" bc in most cases it's not really even the law, it's their own regulations they created as part of implementing "the law" that was actually passed. Massive libraries full of regs no one can fully know and can be used as they see fit since they write them.

To use an example I know enough about, ATF without the approval of congress now requires that anyone buying more than one rifle within a 5 day period in the Mexican border states be reported to ATF and tracked. Effectively a gun registry for those buyers. Congress never approved that action, it would never pass a vote in the House and become law, but if ATF thinks a dealer is avoiding it they can audit them and could use lack of compliance with it as justification for an armed raid and arrest. They could target a dealer without cause, investigate and potentially use this to arrest them at gunpoint all without having to consult with another agency or even the blessing of Congress itself.

now in the courts the guy may or may not get off, but the level of power an agency has when it can write its own regs, ignore that they are contrary to the will of the Congress, and then act on them with armed force as they see fit is mind boggling. ATF IMO isn't even the most troubling. Groups like EPA, Education, etc. show that it's gone well past FBI and Treasury (who were armed to go out and collect the taxes, literally that's why) into anyone who just wants to play SWAT and can find the money to buy the guns and ammo.

[suncat05]

I agree with CBBN for the most part, insofar as agencies like the EPA, and the US Department of Education have ZERO NEED for armed agents. And truth be told, most of the stuff that they would do is things that should be delegated to state authorities as enumerated in the Constitution.

I believe the BATFE is unnecessary and should be abolished, truthfully should have never been created, as well as the Department of Homeland Security, the EPA, the IRS, the Department of Education. Lots of unnecessary jobs with questionable duties and scope of authority that pay way too much money and benefits than are needed and necessary. JMHO.

[badrose]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904.html?m od=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStories

Sad article that leaves me somber. It would be a lot better if my title didn't make look like an illiterate fool.

Fixed it for ya. I get bugged when I do stuff like that as well. ;)

[UKHistory]

Thanks Badrose. Much appreciated. too important a story for the message to be lossed in a typo like that.


Fixed it for ya. I get bugged when I do stuff like that as well. ;)

[CitizenBBN]

Well apparently it isn't just people who get the SWAT treatment.

Nope, the Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources also apparently has it's own SWAT type group, and they honest to goodness just did a raid on a no-kill animal shelter and KILLED a baby deer that had been abandoned by its mother and was being sent to a wildlife refuge the next day. There were 9 DNR agents and the rest were deputy sheriffs. For a deer.

Apparently keeping "wildlife" is illegal there and their policy is to kill the animal(s) in question, so THIRTEEN "heavily armed" officers show up, clear the area where the deer is, and carry it out in a body bag. I kid you not, a body bag. DNR claims the deer was just tranquilized and killed elsewhere, guess that's supposed to make it better.

Pretty fawn, they called it "Mr. Giggles" b/c of the sound it made. Dead wringer for Bambi.

http://www.examiner.com/article/baby-deer-killed-by-swat-team-lawsuit-bizarre-government-take-down-of-fawn


The Governor is less than happy about it, but here's a great example of how these departments have WAY too much power and use of physical force. This was a baby deer at a no kill shelter. Even if they were there to take the deer a couple of guys and a SUV, unarmed, would have been sufficient. What were they expecting in the way of resistance exactly?

Edit: Some of the problem is guys dying to dress up in body armor and go out battling the world, but that's too easy a stereotype. I have LEO buddies that have their own personal body armor and they aren't loony enough to raid a deer shelter.

IMO the bigger problem lies above the front line guys. The people who are budgeting for these things and issuing the orders. It wasn't the guys who showed up who decided to raid the shelter, it was someone in a suit back at an office. They command a SWAT team, their power and prestige expands, egos fed.

[jazyd]

When I read that the other day it made me sick. All of them should be fired including the director

[suncat05]

Yeah, when I read that it made me ill. There was zero sense in that in a lot of ways. The most glaring item though is the fact that the people in charge of protecting that deer are responsible for killing that deer, and for what reason?
As is the case with most bureaucrats, I am of the opinion that somebody screwed the pooch on this one and wasn't smart enough to figure out that this was going to turn into a public relations nightmare. Whoever ordered this needs to be disciplined, demoted, and reassigned to the crummiest post in their agency.

[KeithKSR]

They have to do something with all the excess ammo the government is procuring in order to prevent citizens from purchasing ammo.

[jazyd]

Give it to a deer farm, petting zoo, anything but kill a spotted fawn. Turds

[UKHistory]

Sick. Men died storming the beaches of Normandy and this where we are as a country? I am ashamed.

[suncat05]

Sick. Men died storming the beaches of Normandy and this where we are as a country? I am ashamed.

True enough. Those men were led by another left-wing idealogue(sp?) in FDR, who at that time had the same big government ideas and adored that Communist murderer Josef Stalin. Those servicemen & servicewomen just wanted to stop Hitler & Hirohito and go home to not be bothered again. Not unlike our servicemembers in harm's way now, who are being led(if that word even logically can come into play!)by a left wing liberal who seems intent upon getting us into a war somewhere that he won't allow them to win. Or maybe they should just make war on every deer fawn they can find..........