Goin COMMANDO

[Raven]

[/QUOTE Debutch] does anyone know?

just speculation ...but it seems to me that there's a certain part of the American population
that could suddenly take up arms and try to wage an internal war against the USA....

at that point it's a little to late to say: Hey! we need M16's too!

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raven

[/QUOTE Debutch] does anyone know?

just speculation ...but it seems to me that there's a certain part of the American population
that could suddenly take up arms and try to wage an internal war against the USA....

at that point it's a little to late to say: Hey! we need M16's too!

I thought that too. But there's another part of the American population that scoffs at conspiracy thinking. I've already been accused of pontificating--didn't want to sound like a conspiracist as well. But there's also an ominous other side of this. Rather than localities and States being prepared, the Federal Gov. is planning to outgun its own citizens when it already has overwhelming force. Didn't the founders create the Second Ammendment, among other reasons, to protect the citizens from government tyranny? It's been said that one of the first things a dictatorship requires is the disarming of its citizens. I suppose having bigger guns than the citizens can do the job as well. And, since Federal troops are not supposed to be used against the American populace within this country, arming local troops can be a surrogate to the same ends. Is there really a certain portion of Americans that you speak of that want to take up arms against the USA? Or is that portion wanting to take up arms against oppression that threatens what they consider the USA?

I don't think either "threat" is real. But you can see how it can be looked at in more than one way. My pontificatorial opinion is that those at the federal level simply use every opportunity, consciously, unconsciously, beaucratically, or for whatever reason to expand the federal influence, thus its power--which lessens State and local power. I think, especially at this point in time where we are so used, as a population, to viewing more and more problems as a federal issue, I think the feds just naturally do this, and, further, have the excuse that local govts. can't afford what's "necessary," but the Federal Gvt. can--not really since it's already trillions in debt and has no way of ever paying for even larger unfunded mandates--but who cares?

[Raven]

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Raven

I notice here that the Federal Gvt. did not step in or supply the better firepower that subdued the well armed robbers. The Constitution does not grant the Federal Gvt. police power, it is reserved, therefore to the States. In article 1, section 8 where it talks about providing for and calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union (Federal and Constutional laws, not local or State laws)--so there is no problem providing the national guard with weapons, but there is no Federal jurisdiction to provide them for local police.

The Federal Government is very jealous of its power. It insists that States do not encroach on that power. It has sued the State of Arizona for trying to assist the Federal Gvt. in finding illegal aliens, even though Congress has provided agencies such as ICE and others to work with local law enforcement. It insists that the States must keep hands off, even though it asks us citizens to be on the alert for terrorists and report any suspect activity that might look like incipient terrorism. But when it comes to encroaching on State and individual rights and powers, the Federal Government has a long, "progressive" tradition of doing so--for our own good.