Hey, this is a first for me but I thought it was a little bit needed here since this is a thread for discussion. I'm an American citizen living in Canada but I can't help but notice what's going on next door. Does anyone feel like as the USA progresses the line between the police and the military is rapidly fading? Really? Military grade weapons for peaceful protests, police brutality becoming the norm, NSA wire tapping etc not only is this country becoming less free but also the beginning of an Orwellian society. I'm just saying. Let me hear your thoughts.


http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnew...-police-state/

If you want to do some further research or whatever check out breaking the set on YouTube one of the few news sources not controlled by corporations that censor the news to gain profit.

The US reuses old military gear on their police, so it makes sense for them to have military gear.

They had to act firmly in Ferguson because they had to control the riots and stop another 1992 from happening.

Unfortunately you have to remember the the society south of the border is not good, people in Ferguson rioted and looted, it's not something civilized people do. Controlling a population that will happily self-destruct is not easy.

I know Ferguson wasn't peaceful, and what they did was totally wrong but there's a difference between the enemy and your own citizens.

@Immortalpig I actually didn't know that I guess it's worse to know little on a subject than to know nothing at all. Thanks

@Insanity I totally agree with you, it's all panem et circenses.

Not sure if vigilantcitizen.com is a credible source. You should take a look at their front page, some of the stuff on there is baffling.

thanks that was the first article i stumbled upon and i just grabbed it i guess, RT news is reliable though.

Since almost anyone can carry a firearm in the US, it makes sense for the police to be more militant in nature.
Can't say anything constructive about NSA wiretapping. It was a bad move from their part. At least keep it secret like every other country does.

Well its constitutional to bear arms in case the government becomes out of control and don't fear the people anymore. Hm. Gonna be hard to defend ourselves. Seems like they're preparing for a civil war, not trying to sound like a conspiracy theorist or anything.

In a country where citizens used to have similar rights to weapons as the police do, it makes sense the police will always need a leg up on the drug lords and what not. Recently bulletproof vests became illegal for a citizen to wear, it obvious why, You're an ass hole shooting people you get got or shot but you're heavily bruised not incapacitated which cops want. Automatic weapons are hard to get and also probably illegal, so when civilian had that the popo had access to bigger caliber rifles as well a armor piercing.

I may be over exaggerating, by there is a huge war on drugs and the deaths that come with in America and it's going hard, so backwards, because I heard they were the ones giving drugs to the inner cities.

Should I point out the redundancy of a law that's supposedly to protect your right to bear arms against an oppressive state? That if you believe a government is illegitimate, it makes no sense that you would look to their laws to justify your resistance? Or that somehow your rifle is going to do a thing if they decide to drive a tank through your door, or drop a missile from a drone? Or that a government would have to be lead by retards to come up with a law that creates a legal loophole for violent uprisings?

Or should I just list off the historical relevance of the Second Amendment in the context of which it was drawn up? That is was adopted from a section of British Common Law that gave citizens the right to bear arms as a part of a government regulated militia so that they could both defend the state as a trained fighting force in the case of war, and function as a law enforcement body in rural areas when law enforcement would take hours to days to arrive? And that the U.S. was facing similar problems by having no developed army at the time, and being mainly a rural nation with scattered law enforcement?

Or maybe I should just point out that gun rights have only taken the whole "protect ourselves from the government" approach relatively recently because of a concerted effort of gun manufacturers to increase sales by instilling fear in the gun owning population that their guns would be taken away to scare them into stockpiling them? And that the major vessel for it has been the NRA, an organization that receives the majority of it's funding from gun manufacturers? And that they've been highly successful, as it's estimated that American citizens own 20 times more small arms than the entire U.S. military?


So which way would you prefer I use to poke holes in the "second amendment is to protect us from big brother" belief?

Do you get off on acting like this? It's not cool and witty, just childish.

On the question, no, I don't think so. Ferguson recieved a paramilitary response from the police, sure, but I don't think you can extract an isolated event and construct a trend from it.