...and the hits just keep on a coming...

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by dragonfly, Jan 28, 2010.

  1. dragonfly

    dragonfly Monkey+++

    I just spoke with my oldest son, the deputy...
    Things are not so good for L/E and fire department personnel.
    (Good news for OUR first Responders...NOT!)
    The Sheriff's office people had to surrender to losing their furlough hours (56 per man), their uniform allowances, any and all O/T, and, shorter hours ( less than 40 per week)...and a few more...misc items....In order NOT to lose more manpower (layoff's).
    Meanwhile on the local news tonight, the Phoenix Police is looking at laying off 200 to 400 officers, and they are already short some 386 positions currently!
    The DPS ( State Police/Highway Patrol) officers are looking at a loss of 240 and possibly even more positions...
    One fire department officer said they all lost 5% of their pay, and anyone in the department making up to $100,000, is looking at an immediate pay reduction of up to 15%.
    My second oldest son was one of the first to lose his job (low man on the totem pole) with the Phoenix P.D.
    I think this is ONLY the beginning of a VERY bad trend....
  2. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Either they will hire more Latino types and fill the roles, or they will continue to cut manpower and wait for the STHTF. With illegal immigration continuing to rise, and with decent citizens losing guns -I see this situation getting ugly quick. The Arizona locale is RIPE for plucking. I wonder if the People know just what this all could mean?

    I have always been a firm believer in NOT having police. They are irrelevant in a republic, as every citizen should be expected to protect themselves and their families, and when they cannot -they should hire security. Neighborhoods, Burroughs, and Towns can lay tax and hire a security force if the People decide, and it should be without restraint to those who do not wish to use the security force (this means that if I vote against the use of security personnel, then they have no business even talking to me.) Somewhere along the lines, we lost touch with reality; primarily in the 20's and 30's, with prohibition and financial ruin, the People decided to slowly and gradually drop out of reality and let the government govern itself. The Police began to arrest and detain citizens, they jailed them over offenses which took root overnight as our legislature made even more "laws" (see codes) to enforce. Eventually, with the advent of television, this problem grew at an exponential rate; people no longer cared what their neighbors were up to; they lost touch with reality and started believing what the little magic box was telling them. Fashion and Hollywood took the place of petitioning their grievance and protesting to hold their government accountable. But, we do not live in a republic any longer, do we? The police have become (I am sad to say) an unfortunate necessity...

    The police are the arm of the type of government we have permitted to exist. And now, when the majority of the People have become dependent upon this system in order for their fantasy lives to continue -the lifeline gets unplugged. Now, these arrogant, pompous fools will watch as the very last vestiges of hope flicker and fade away to nothing. And when the tyrannous government comes to the rescue, just as the People expect to be saved from disparity and chaos...they will find out that the situation will suddenly become more precarious than their worst nightmares.

    The entire country is eroding, from the inside out. Expect nothing. Plan for anything.

    (Including a replacement army)
  3. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    You would be mostly incorrect. In order to maintain freedom to prosper, one must be able to leave his home and property without fear of having it "sacked". In order for this to be possible, there must be such a body of enforcement that allows us to do so. While I agree, this is not personal protection, it IS protection enough to provide for the general welfare of the people. Without services such as the police, fire, emgcy, we would not be able to venture out too far without assuming an butt-load of risk to our property and others' property as well.

    I will give you this: the police, as they are today, do not completely fulfill the role of "watchers" as described above.
  4. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Every once in a while I read what you type, UGRev.

    I don't need to justify unnecessary government for a republic; because the smaller government is, the better it will be for the People. If YOU want to have gestapo agents patrolling your property while you are off at work or play -that shouldn't become MY PROBLEM. Therefore, I am most certainly NOT "mostly incorrect" as you stated. The individual's property rights are central to the free exercise of all basic rights, and in that sense, it does not qualify others to patrol or protect property which is not their own. For instance, I cannot come to YOUR property and expect or demand YOU to obey MY COMMANDS, or vice verse.

    I highly suggest that you read up on constitutional precedence and take the Badnarik constitution class as a prerequisite to arguing this subject with me. You are only making yourself look bad.

    On the other hand, and to grant your ideals a tiny fragment of consideration, I can understand the protection of PUBLIC property to be patrolled by a security force (if it is the will of the people), but the USE of said PUBLIC property must never be confused with property belonging to the federal government (i.e. Washington D.C.), which is limited by the constitution, and set aside as a Federal Zone and therefore not subject to the laws of the People directly, but is exclusively under the control of Congress.

    Please cite for me the direct reference in the constitution which delegates such authority to the government? Your opinion and logic is slanted and EPIC fail. Perhaps in a dictatorship or some type of socialist society we could establish equal protection for private property...but it stinks on high of foul play and corruption, and any free thinking person would object to your faulty logic. I should not have to be responsible for your property, nor should you be responsible for mine. If you wish to hire your own security force, so be it....but I certainly will not pay for it, and I also refuse to be harassed, licensed, and categorized by any government, agency, bureau, or police in the *named state* of the republic of the United States.

    Bottom line: any policy which I cannot "opt-out" of, is a policy I will not support or defend.
  5. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    I think you missed my point entirely. I am not saying the someone should patrol your property (on it, under it or otherwise camp on it) but 150 years ago, like you said, it was up to you to secure your property and I don't think that should change; however, it's important to note that times are different and the population is quite larger than it was which makes for securing one's property different in many respects.

    150 years ago, if I had to leave my land for what ever reason.. it was wide open to thugs to come in an sack my property and when I returned.. well.. I would be none too pleased.

    You could have your hired hands or hired guns (your choice) and you could pay them a wage. But not everyone had that kind of luxury. It's not that you are responsible for my property nor I, yours.. it's a service to the people that allows them the freedom enough to prosper with reduced fear that their property will be sacked beyond the capabilities of their own security measures.

    By all means, I am with you in the notion that it is up to you to secure your property but when such a force is necessary to mitigate criminal activity that trumps your security, my security and the security of those around us, you can see where a police force is warranted. Otherwise, we'd be left with vigilante justice. Is that your desire?

    I should be without fear of my neighbor or a band of thugs ransacking peoples' property or worse.

    But by all means, if you feel that you have the time/money/power to hunt, find and re-mediate such a person as a serial killer.. give me a call, I'll buy the gas and the coffee.

    ...and the 10th amendment gives the power to the states to create such a police force.
  6. Brokor

    Brokor Live Free or Cry Moderator Site Supporter+++ Founding Member

    Re-read my first post. I specifically mentioned this dependence upon police due to the fact that many civilians are now disarmed, licensed, and heavily regulated.
    Again, not my problem.
    I do not support this "service", and as such, I should not have to comply with the rules, laws, codes, and other aspects of such a police force, who would attempt to enforce such. As long as I leave your property alone, there will not be an issue, and this is why I mentioned private security instead of some type of mandated socialistic police force. You also mention REDUCED FEAR. I am sorry, but a People who live in FEAR of their lives are capable of making mistakes (like trading their liberty for security) -which is what got us in this mess to start with.
    Unless a human being can "trump" a .45 slug to the chest, I guess you may have an argument. Again, I see no "necessity" for a mandated police force. The assumption of "vigilante justice" running rampant is just a fear tactic used in the attempt to justify the use of another type of force mandated by the state. Tell me, why should I trade my sovereignty for false security? When seconds count, the police are just minutes away.
    Exactly. Perhaps you might invest in some guns. Maybe make a few friends and start a community watch. Become part of an organized militia. Help round up the criminals and have them tried for their crimes. You know, in the "wild west", a bounty hunter was just a person who went after the "bad guys". There was no need for "licensing" and "regulation". And there were also lynch mobs who went out and tried to locate the bad guy. I am not saying that this is a suitable alternative...but it sure beats locally funded Gestapo.
    Serial killers are not as common as men who wear tactical black and knock down your door in the middle of the night to haul you away to prison.
    ...OR TO THE CITIZENS. Never forget that. [winkthumb]
  7. UGRev

    UGRev Get on with it!

    I would love nothing more than to go the other direction with all of the police state bs.

    This was an attempt to compare and contrast.

    I completely support the opt out condition. Some people will want it, others won't. I am all for opting out of medicare,medicaid and social security as well as giving my money to the IRS. I do feel, however, that there are circumstances beyond my control and my ability to reasonably affect a positive resolution and in turn this may take the combined efforts of a specialized (as is already the case in many situations) group of people to handle the situation. It is the job of the government to protect its citizens as a whole by providing for the general welfare of the people. After all, is it not the job of the government to make sure that all possible means that do not infringe on our rights and that are within the powers enumerated in the constitution are taken so that we can live an be prosperous?

    Would you like to also opt out of traveling on the roads?

    It's clear that you are very secure in your ability to master your own safety. Other people may not be as sophisticated as you in this respect. It takes all kinds of people and there are ALL types of personalities, including pacifists who love to leave the fighting to the fighters. Even if it means paying them to do it.

    Mine were uh. stolen.. never found them again. *wink* *wink*.

    Ok, fair enough. How about the "gangland" situation. They clearly outnumber you (as a single person). I wish NY allowed the creation of Militias. I hate this state and I wish I could move out of it. I also wish the gov't would remove its boot so we could be free to form them without reprisal. But I also don't want total anarchy either. That's just as dangerous.

    Well, with all the police forces having to let go of so many officers, I think you just must start seeing the Citizens take advantage of this.

    Thanks for the conversation. I just wish the tone was a little less abrasive. It seems we are on the same side here.
survivalmonkey SSL seal        survivalmonkey.com warrant canary