• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

American History Reveals the Alternative to the Police State

Tricorn

Regular Member
Joined
May 8, 2006
Messages
899
Location
Fredericksburg, Virginia, USA
"...
Governments restore individual Second Amendment rights to all citizens, which they should have done after SCOTUS made clear in various decisions that the police do not have to protect individuals or their property. (That’s right liberals, your very own New York Times wrote about it in 2005. For those readers who rightly do not trust that source, here is a more recent overview from Mises.org) A wave of mass shootings will not ensue and in fact gun violence will probably remain about the same, except in domestic disputes, admits the New York Times. South Dakota, which has long had liberal gun laws, last year enacted Constitutional Carry, which means that anybody can carry any weapon anywhere in public, openly or concealed, without a permit. The main opposition to the bill came from law enforcement, which rightly viewed it as a threat to their funding as free people learn the police are unnecessary. Private citizens used their gun rights to protect themselves and their property when out-of-state rioters tried to cause problems in Sioux Falls on 31 May.
..."
American History Reveals the Alternative to the Police State
 

solus

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 22, 2013
Messages
8,729
Location
here nc
tis a shame your cite fails to look at nor discuss the concept of the constitutionality of the police in the first place. As Roots' outlined in his 2001 document whose's abstract is quoted below, quote:

Police work is often lionized by jurists and scholars who claim to employ "textualist" and "originalist"
methods of constitutional interpretation. Yet professional police were unknown to the United States in
1789, and first appeared in America almost a half-century after the Constitution's ratification. The
Framers contemplated law enforcement as the duty of mostly private citizens, along with a few
constables and sheriffs who could be called upon when necessary. This article marshals extensive
historical and legal evidence to show that modern policing is in many ways inconsistent with the
original intent of America's founding documents. The author argues that the growth of modern policing
has substantially empowered the state in a way the Framers would regard as abhorrent to their foremost
principles.​

unquote
[ https://ad-store.sgp1.digitaloceans..._ (Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal).pdf ]

therefore if, constitutionally there is no concept of policing in our founding documents why is this country embracing and tolerating the militarized law enforcement police [sheriff is an elected official] group?
 

color of law

Accomplished Advocate
Joined
Oct 7, 2007
Messages
5,358
Location
Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
This article is/was written from a business profit perspective. It is clear the author really has no perspective as to how government is really suppose to work, meaning the true purpose of government.

He does understand that the insurance companies run the world, but be believes they should be at the forefront of all activity, not behind the scenes.

Example is his item 3:
Governments allow insurers to enforce traffic laws, another major drain on police department resources. Insurers can do so by insisting on higher premiums for moving infractions, like speeding, which can be enforced via onboard monitoring devices as well as intersection cams owned and operated by a consortium of automobile insurers. (Auto registration and licensing can also be handled by insurers instead of state agencies. Sorry DMV but your long lines and surly employees are a form of needless torture.)
What he is saying is the profit motive should be with the insurance companies NOT the government. The problem is the government should not be treating infractions/violations as a profit center.
 

OC for ME

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
12,402
Location
White Oak Plantation
We do not like private insurers now because they are state mandated for driving. Banks require home (structure) insurance or no bank note to buy the house.

Insurance companies are not the solution...because they are state controlled...if you think that "shopping around" keeps "Big Insurance" under control...I have some land just east of Ft. Sumter for sale...real cheap...

Governments allow insurers to enforce traffic laws
, another major drain on police department resources. Insurers can do so by insisting on higher premiums for moving infractions, like speeding, which can be enforced via onboard monitoring devices as well as intersection cams owned and operated by a consortium of automobile insurers. (Auto registration and licensing can also be handled by insurers instead of state agencies. Sorry DMV but your long lines and surly employees are a form of needless torture.)
Robert E. Wright...for a guy who has been in the classroom for a long time...he is the prototypical Ivory Tower pencil neck.

Or...he is being paid by Big Insurance...You decide...

Anyway...Big Insurance, not bound by constitutional constraints...as is government, I've been told...could run amok and there is not a thing anyone could do about it...let alone Big Government.

Enact a law that prohibits cop shops from being insured by private insurers...the cop shop operating budget is on the hook for bad cop behaviors...change would be right quick and in a hurry...

Robert E. Wright...pencil neck...
 

JTHunter2

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 11, 2017
Messages
315
Location
Planet Earth
Like baby monitors, "nanny cams", etc., these are ALL devices for spying on people. And every damned one of them can be hacked and perverted. Do any of you remember the story from just last fall where some nutter had hacked a child's toy and told them he was Santa and they should mess up their room?
ANYTHING electronic can be hacked.
 
Top