Ever wonder why there is such a major push to both militarize the police, and simultaneously demilitarize — even disarm — the military?
I think Bill Quick may have touched on the answer.
Soldiers expect that they may have to kill enemies of the nation. Cops expect that they may have to kill civilian criminals. They don’t have a problem with that. If they did, they wouldn’t become cops. Now, keep in mind that the only difference between a regular civilian and a criminal is a law. If some municipality passed a law tomorrow saying that it was now a crime to have a living room painted blue, and yours was blue, in that moment you become a criminal. And if a policeman sees your blue living room, he can arrest you for breaking the law. And if you resist his attempt to arrest you, he can shoot you dead.
Soliders would likely have problems with that, because they are trained to defend Americans against people who would like to kill them. Cops are trained to kill people who resist their efforts to enforce the law. One mindset is excellent for enforcing tyranny, and the other, not so much.
Further, here in America, we have an all-volunteer army. The sorts of people who volunteer to serve in the military tend to be more patriotic, and less progressive, than the mindset of the Ruling Party. Hence, the military is not especially trusted. That’s one reason why their votes tend to get delayed or lost.
So. If you were trying to put together a full-blown tyranny, you might want to lessen the power of the military a bit, and increase the reach, breadth, and armament of the various police forces, especially the national one you figure you will likely depend upon most to enforce your legal system. To “protect” the people, of course, of course.
Does any of this do anything to help explain some of the changes we see occurring around us? I’m not sure, but I fear that it does.
I fear so too.
SWAT teams dress as soldiers and invade living rooms of citizens, killing dogs and people with impunity. At the same time, real soldiers are increasingly not allowed to be armed at all in the presence of our leaders.
I don’t like the message. I do not find it reassuring to be told that the police are there to protect us, while the military is not to be trusted.
Comments
3 responses to “Who is more likely to turn their guns on civilians?”
Excellent points.
In the Marines in the 80’s and early 90’s, we often had our weapons (unloaded) when out and about. A decade later in the National Guard, I was shocked at how rarely I was issued my rifle.
Marine and Amy NCO’s also seem far more aware of the Constitution that they have sworn to protect than cops. There were Soldiers who refused to participate in some of the Unconstitutional acts that went on after Hurricane Katrina.
If you want to own the military, you have to clean out the people who actually care about the country. Firing anyone who would rather follow their oath to the constitution than a politician is one step. This new medal as a slap in the face to actual combat vets is just another way to push that goal.
Re: “SWAT teams dress as soldiers and invade living rooms of citizens, killing dogs and people with impunity. At the same time, real soldiers are increasingly not allowed to be armed at all in the presence of our leaders.
I don’t like the message. I do not find it reassuring to be told that the police are there to protect us, while the military is not to be trusted.”
The military, despite years of leftist pressure upon it, still (at least in part) retains traditional American values. The data I have seen reflect this in a roughly 70/30 split between those who oppose Obama and those who do not – within the ranks. Obama and his leftist ideologue allies know this.
They therefore view the military as an adversary – at least until they can purge it of their ideological enemies. Obama and company have made considerable progress in co-opting the ranks of flag (generals/admirals) and field grade officers, but a sizeable majority of junior officers and enlisted personnel still oppose him.
The solution reached by Obama and his top subordinates has been several-fold. First, keep the military overseas and out of the way, where they can’t have much of an effect on domestic events and policy. Second, employ them as de facto mercenaries on behalf of Islamist causes, as Obama is now doing in Africa and the Middle East. Third, work to co-opt the military into your orbit by purging your opposition from the ranks.
Fourth, build-up your own “domestic security force” as strong and as well-funded as the military – aka DHS, etc. who are to be Obama’s Brownshirts.