• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are Cops Too Militarized?

Are police units going too far by being overly militarized?


  • Total voters
    55
Obviously not overnight but yes much of the crime and gang activities in inner cities is caused by the war on drugs so ending it would alleviate the probems some.
It will adjust to another vice.

The problem isn't drugs as much as it is the culture present in those types of neighborhoods and the lack of education.
 
We all have the Drug Warriors to thank for it.

Yep... Because The Department of Homeland Security's purpose behind all this is to fight drugs....... even though most of the time these grants are based off of being a first line of defense against terrorism.
 
When it comes down to real-life issues, most libertarians stand with conservatives in protecting the power and privilege of the rich and powerful and their corporations as well as the military-industrial complex.

You have no idea what libertarianism is, do you?
 
You have no idea what libertarianism is, do you?

I understand it pretty well and see that it fails to adequately address the issues of the excessive power and privilege of the rich and powerful and their corporations, protection of the environment and the excessive spending and destruction from the military-industrial complex.
 
When in our history did the American right wing begin the hard turn against law enforcement? At one time American conservatives and support for law enforcement went hand in hand. Now, its obvious that the hate for government that is part and parcel of libertarianism has been extended to law enforcement. When did this devolution happen?

This thread is merely the latest example of it here.

Most likely they were more anti-hippie then pro-law enforcement.

Also wanting law enforcement agency not to be a para-military organization is not anti-law enforcement,
 
I understand it pretty well and see that it fails to adequately address the issues of the excessive power and privilege of the rich and powerful and their corporations, protection of the environment and the excessive spending and destruction from the military-industrial complex.

Well apparently you don't because you made the claim that Libertarians protect the military industrial complex which, in of itself, is an outrageous claim. Considering Libertarians are some of the most anti-war, anti military people you will ever meet, it's laughable you'd even attempt to claim we support the beast that is the military industrial complex. Right off the bat, you've discredited yourself entirely by making that statement.

It's also pretty funny that you claim that Libertarians support the rich and powerful considering we are vehemently opposed to corporate welfare, bank bailouts, and corporate/bank subsidies. In fact, Libertarians have been in opposition to even the "anti rich" Democrats on these issues. I put "anti rich" in quotes because Democrats are even deeper in the corporate profit than the Republicans, which is saying something! Libertarians are extremely anti-corporatist, to say otherwise once again shows an extreme lack of knowledge of even basic Libertarian principles.

So, I will ask the question again. You have no flippin clue what libertarianism is, do you?
 
most of the arguments against the reliability are based on target guns that are built tight. as to killing a person you are right. as to stopping power, perhaps not. for novices you are right. my splits for double taps with USPSA major ammunition in a 1911 and minor USPSA power factor 9mm is negligible

While there is no doubt that target guns are less reliable than normal 1911s nontarget or match 1911s are still less reliable than guns like Glocks newer H&Ks or S@W M&Ps. That is one of the reasons that a certain military unit that was using them switched even though they have plenty of expert armorers there to keep them running.
As to stopping power the difference is negligible. The studies I have seen done all say that both the 9 and 45 have very close to the same rounds needed for a kill as each other.
Less recoil always everything else being equal allows for faster follow up shots. That is why guys load just enough powder into their competition rounds to cycle the action.
Is it a huge amount for a skilled user no but slower is slower.
 
When it comes down to real-life issues, most libertarians stand with conservatives in protecting the power and privilege of the rich and powerful and their corporations as well as the military-industrial complex.

that isn't exactly accurate. what we oppose is the socialist solutions the left has for dealing with corporations. many libertarians opposed the Iraq war. we just don't see as a valid reaction--to the allegations "corporations have too much power" --giving the government more power to loot corporate wealth and taxing shareholders even more
 
While there is no doubt that target guns are less reliable than normal 1911s nontarget or match 1911s are still less reliable than guns like Glocks newer H&Ks or S@W M&Ps. That is one of the reasons that a certain military unit that was using them switched even though they have plenty of expert armorers there to keep them running.
As to stopping power the difference is negligible. The studies I have seen done all say that both the 9 and 45 have very close to the same rounds needed for a kill as each other.
Less recoil always everything else being equal allows for faster follow up shots. That is why guys load just enough powder into their competition rounds to cycle the action.
Is it a huge amount for a skilled user no but slower is slower.

1) I agree the modern guns are slightly more reliable. I shoot a MP 5" in steel. I shoot a CZ Czechmate in unlimited (race gun). My son, however, shoots a Springfield Armory in "single stack" or 1911 divisions. It is as reliable as his stock gun-a Glock 34 with Dawson sights.

2) modern 9mm ammo such as golden sabers, Hornady critical defense or Federal Hydrashocks have almost as good stopping power as modern 45 ACP loads. Where the 45 ACP has a clear advantage is when you are limited to FMJ''

3) in steel we load the rounds enough to reliably cycle the action. In USPSA its to make the 165 Power factor (Major) though. you can make 165 with a nine millimeter but its way beyond SAAMI specs and only in guns designed for such loads like an STI match master or the Czechmate.
 
And having regular guns would have magically kept multiple vehicles from getting shot?

What?

I'll try anyway, cops are supposed to bring criminals to justice, as in the courts. Military is to kill people and break things.

A militarized police will ultimately become more trigger happy and less discerning of targets.

That's not good for anyone.
 
I understand it pretty well and see that it fails to adequately address the issues of the excessive power and privilege of the rich and powerful and their corporations, protection of the environment and the excessive spending and destruction from the military-industrial complex.

what we find amusing is those who claim that corporations have too much power and the rich have too much wealth, propose as solutions giving the government even more power and politicians even more wealth
 
Well apparently you don't because you made the claim that Libertarians protect the military industrial complex which, in of itself, is an outrageous claim. Considering Libertarians are some of the most anti-war, anti military people you will ever meet, it's laughable you'd even attempt to claim we support the beast that is the military industrial complex. Right off the bat, you've discredited yourself entirely by making that statement.

It's also pretty funny that you claim that Libertarians support the rich and powerful considering we are vehemently opposed to corporate welfare, bank bailouts, and corporate/bank subsidies. In fact, Libertarians have been in opposition to even the "anti rich" Democrats on these issues. I put "anti rich" in quotes because Democrats are even deeper in the corporate profit than the Republicans, which is saying something! Libertarians are extremely anti-corporatist, to say otherwise once again shows an extreme lack of knowledge of even basic Libertarian principles.

So, I will ask the question again. You have no flippin clue what libertarianism is, do you?

There has been libertarian opposition to the USA's foreign wars, but there has been little libertarian opposition to the MIC, with many libertarians saying that the military is one of the few legitimate tasks of federal government. Libertarians may claim to be anti-corporate and they may oppose corporate welfare, bank bailouts, and corporate/bank subsidies but they want to eliminate most of the government 's (esp the Feds) attempts to monitor, control or regulate corporations and/or big business. Corporate welfare, bank bailouts, and corporate/bank subsidies are only a portion of the problems associated with corporations and the extremely rich having too much power, in fact, they are symptoms more than problems.

Whatever the issue, the libertarian "solution" always requires reducing the size of government. When the problem is too much power in the hands of private entities, reducing the size and scope of government is most likely to make the situation worse.
 
...we just don't see as a valid reaction--to the allegations "corporations have too much power" --giving the government more power to loot corporate wealth and taxing shareholders even more

Proving my point.
 
Proving my point.

I find corporations less oppressive than government so I'd rather see corporations have more power and the government less
 
I find corporations less oppressive than government so I'd rather see corporations have more power and the government less

i have to say i prefer power divided.

so special interest [unions, corporations, plan parenthood, environmentalist] have no power to succeed in lobbying our government, and the federal government is restrained by the state legislatures.
 
you made perfect sense to me, I do not know what the issue is with this response towards you. I said a lot of violence and you stated that it was often due to gang violence and the ever present drug problem that fuels these gangs of thugs.

Exactly, what keeps these gangs in the money? Drugs and prostitution. Legalization of both would put a huge dent in their profit margin and hurt their business obviously.
 
There has been libertarian opposition to the USA's foreign wars, but there has been little libertarian opposition to the MIC

Of all the things Ron Paul ever complained about, the MIC was at the top of that list. Don't even. Opposition to war means opposition to the MIC. The MIC feeds off of wars and, frankly, would not exist without foreign interventionism. Which Libertarians oppose.

When the problem is too much power in the hands of private entities, reducing the size and scope of government is most likely to make the situation worse.

When the problem is a government largely bought out by private entities, giving more power to government is most likely to make the situation worse. The government can use it's control over the economy to benefit their corporate lapdogs. You can't just whine about how the government is bought out by big corporations and then propose that the government, which is deep in the pocket of these corporate entities, reign in their own masters. With political incentives discretion is a joke. It's a fundamentally flawed and disingenuous idea that only arises from a lack of economic knowledge and literacy.
 
It will adjust to another vice.

The problem isn't drugs as much as it is the culture present in those types of neighborhoods and the lack of education.

Not that easy to adjust when the money is gone. The money is made possible by drug prohibition.
 
Whatever the issue, the libertarian "solution" always requires reducing the size of government. When the problem is too much power in the hands of private entities, reducing the size and scope of government is most likely to make the situation worse.
How exactly would reducing the size of the government make things worse?
 
How exactly would reducing the size of the government make things worse?

I think TOO MUCH government is the problem here. :mrgreen: Is this a free country or what?
 
Yep... Because The Department of Homeland Security's purpose behind all this is to fight drugs....... even though most of the time these grants are based off of being a first line of defense against terrorism.

Bottom of a slippery slope that started with the drug warrior/drug gang arms race.
 
When in our history did the American right wing begin the hard turn against law enforcement? At one time American conservatives and support for law enforcement went hand in hand. Now, its obvious that the hate for government that is part and parcel of libertarianism has been extended to law enforcement. When did this devolution happen?

This thread is merely the latest example of it here.

I would say it began 20 or 30 years ago, after and because of about 50 years of the unintended consequences of our most pernicious policy of drug prohibition, the War On Drugs.

The police zealously enforced that harmful policy, the courts carved out the "drug exception" to the Fourth Amendment and other Constitutional protections, and many well known conservatives began to speak out against the idiotic policy, including Friedman, Schulz, Becker, Buckley and National Review, and a host of others.

The cops became de facto military units and Posse Comitatus was abandoned, over the objections of many including Cap Weinberg.
 
How exactly would reducing the size of the government make things worse?

Reigning in the power of private entities with huge financial resources requires a government with the strength and resources to take them on.
 
TeleKat;1063305225...When the problem is a government largely bought out by private entities said:
I would probably agree with that sentiment if we didn't have a structure (the constitution) capable of supporting a real (representational) democracy. I don't believe that the federal government is too broken to fix, if people wake up and work together to create the government we need. Otherwise we'll get the government we deserve.
 
Reigning in the power of private entities with huge financial resources requires a government with the strength and resources to take them on.
Which private entities are you referring to?
 
Back
Top Bottom