7/7/2013 3:43:54 PM
Section 4: National
Subject: Constitution? What Constitution? Msg# 861762
Rereading my response to you, I noticed that this: Incidentally, the Las Vegas Review-Journal finally covered that story in Saturday's paper but I can't link it here because it wasn't important enough to put on their web edition! was in the wrong place! It refers to the Henderson SWAT team invading the home, not the Dearborn garage thing.
I appreciate your concern over middle-of-the-night raids and other paramilitary actions by police forces. The police will say that such activities are the best way for them to insure that there is minimal resistance and no bloodshed on either side. That may be generally true, but there have been enough botched raids like this to give us concern. Maybe the answer is not to forbid such raids - and other SWAT activities - but to strip them of their governmental immunity if the raid goes wrong. Knowing they can be the subject of lawsuits (and maybe even criminal action) both as an institution and as individuals might make the decision to proceed more carefully researched and planned.
In my mind this is a lose-lose situation for those of us who might choose to defend ourselves with a firearm.
In a sense, any defense with a firearm is already a lose-lose situation. That's why we emphasize that such action is only to be taken in last-ditch defense of life! There will always be mistakes, misunderstood situations and people judging us in hindsight and without all the facts, Dale.
Increased police presence on the roads is certainly preferable to me than checkpoints. Even more preferable would be the knowledge that sure and severe punishment will come from being caught drunk or stoned on the road! In some parts of Europe bartenders give people Breathalyzer tests before allowing them to leave the premises. those impaired are strongly encouraged to take a cab home. The customers comply because they know that they will go to jail if caught drunk on the road!
And I'm with you on Obamacare!
Reply | ReplyNewSubject
For reference, the above message is a reply to a message where:|
>> I would rather be in peril from terrorists than from my own government!<<
Very well stated and I'm in total agreement. I'm particularly concerned about the middle of the night raids on houses. These used to be called "No Knock" raids, but now I understand that someone knocks (just before they bust the door down) and announces "Police," however this is all done before most of us would be awake enough to actually understand what woke us up.
In my mind this is a lose-lose situation for those of us who might choose to defend ourselves with a firearm. Since we probably haven't comprehended that it is really police breaking our door down, we may assume that the situation is a home invasion. Responding accordingly we're either going to shoot police officers, in the performance of their duties, or be shot. Neither is good. Frankly I'd rather take my chances with the bad guys.
With regard to roadside checkpoints, I'd think that an increased police presence on the roads might be a better option. If the police observe erratic or unusual driving then I'd think that they would have probable cause to stop the vehicle and detain the driver.
Secret pilfering of private property (stored in safety deposit boxes or wherever) is simply wrong! I think that we've given (or the government has taken and we haven't objected loudly enough) too much power to the government. In the absense of specific evidence of an absolute need, I'd probably vote to repeal the Patriot Act.
I'd probably also vote to repeal ObamaCare, another intrusion into what should be our own business, rather than that of the government.