DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Ferguson Police Department Found Guilty Of Discrimination

Did the city of Ferguson have the mrap? Did the state supply it? Was it the federal gov't. that brought it in? I don't - just a question.

I disagree about the "zero reason to have military grade weaponry and equipment..." (not on civilians)

Should cops not have at least equal access to guns that bad guys have? Actually, shouldn't cops have access to better weapons and equipment? After all, cops are the first to deal with uprisings, right?

That's not to say they should be patrolling in tanks......but when a riot situation arises.......I want the cops to be able to protect me, my property, and my town/city.

So what else shouldn't we have?

My currently issued side arm is a Smith and Wesson M&P .45, the M&P meaning military and police. Should I not be allowed to have that? (BTW, I LOVE this gun... I highly recommend any of the M&P line if you are looking for a new pistol).

I also patrol with Smith and Wesson's AR-15 variant. Should I not be allowed to have that either? Despite having ammo designed for limited penetration.

What about the Remmington 870 shotgun? It saw action over seas.

What about my boots? I love the line of combat boots Oakley developed.

Speaking of Oakley, what about my sunglasses? They have a ballistic rating that was developed with protecting the soldier in mind.

What about being a veteran? Should I not be allowed to be a cop because after all I've received military training.

Yes I know at this point I'm being more of a smartass, but these are the things that fall under your blanket classification of "military grade".

In the interests of constructive dialogue, serious question here: what do YOU think we can and should have? What kind of equipment should a patrolman have? A SWAT guy? What equipment do you think would have been more appropriate and effective in handling the Ferguson rioting/looting?

I guess we should do nothing and wait until we have no more rights? Just recently, the democrats tried to pass a statement (non-binding of course) that stated our rights came from the government instead of from god. I'm not sure if that matters to you, but it does to me.

If your rights came from God then let him be your protection when they're infringed upon.

Rights come from yourself and only yourself. You must protect them by yourself.

I believe you misunderstood the idea of your rights coming from God. The idea is not that some deity gave you rights. It is more about being a human being that grants you rights. It is the belief that God is your creator that makes one say God given rights. If you do not believe in God, then I accept that you believe your rights are given by yourself. Please do not belittle someone for having religious beliefs. It is unbecoming of the debate.

Voleur, CHS does manage to miss great parts of a discussion due to his biases. One of which is the statements I've made in the past that I'm not religious. The idea of god given rights means that they can't be taken away from you by a president (or any president in deference to pit) or our government. We are guaranteed these rights by the belief that we are more than just mere animals. I don't care if that believe is in god, allah, odin, yourself or the great green arkleseizure. As for his statement on "If your rights came from God then let him be your protection when they're infringed upon", I would like to remind him of the old saying, god helps those that help themselves.

The idea that always remains with me is a quote by Benjamin Franklin, supposedly when he was exiting the Constitutional Convention that gave us our founding documents and country. When asked what type of government they created, he stated, "A republic, if you can keep it."

Okay, if we can agree, and I think we can, that the biggest issuance of legislation that began a serious impeding of our rights to privacy and due process was the Patriot act. That was signed into law in October of 2001. So this is a problem that has been an ongoing situation for just under 14 years now. It has been exasperated by both political parties.

I certainly find it concerning and upsetting. It's what I consider the worst thing that government has crammed down the throats of the American people. I refuse to restrict blame to a political party because its a systemic political issue perpetrated by both political parties.

So my question to you is what is it you propose we do about it? While it's a sad state of affairs, as it stands there are only two parties in this country who stand a chance of being elected and both of those are no less guilty of what we are discussing here. So I'm very anxious to hear what you believe the solution is.

The patriot act, while it might have seemed a good idea at the time, should have been allowed to expire when it was written to expire. I didn't like it and I still don't. If we willingly give away our rights, what good is our security?

As for a fix, I have a couple of proposals. The first thing has to do with personal responsibility (which will probably never happen). How many people actually know anything about their local politicians when voting? Government starts locally.

I would then like to see a candidate for national elections that doesn't care about a lot of the social issues. For me, that candidate would be a person that wants to start limiting the federal government. I would first like to see the Department of Education gone. If your county/city/state wants to teach creation over evolution, that's fine by me. If a person there doesn't want their kids taught that, then move. This will increase competition with the education of our children. The fed can disperse the money that is wasted on the DoE to the states. I also think one of the major problems in this country is the lack of teaching history.

Other departments like the EPA can go next. The best reason I can give are the farms in California that lost their water in favor of a fish. Once again, I believe that money would be better used by the states than the fed.

Granted, my ideas are a real pipe dream, as a lot of people in this country believe they need the federal government from cradle to grave. I am ever hopeful, though.

And you hit on a good point - once you give someone power, it is very hard for them to relinquish it.

I heard a George Bush speech many years ago and someone from the crowd asked him about why the government did not take over some program (i don't remember what it was).. His response I do remember...basically, he said that when the Government gets involved in something, especially if they are paying, you get everything that comes with that, and most is not very good long term. Eventually, you will lose control of that program as our Government is built to grow and not necessarily shrink- meaning that once programs start, they will grow and typically grow well beyond their intended involvement. Power always wants more power and control is power.

I agree with your hope and would like people to remember, there is not "government" but a people of this country residing in power within the Government structure...meaning that we the people area actually the ones who are the governemnt.

The Unanimous Declaration of the Thirteen United States of America

When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the laws of nature and of nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.


We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

http://www.constitution.org/usdeclar.htm

While that's a noble set of ideas, one that to some extent I agree with, I don't see how it addresses the issue at hand.

IMO we were discussing what we as citizens can do to keep the government from a continuation of invading our privacy and eroding our rights based on the ideology of safety. I tried to set the parameters that both parties are guilty of it and those, as of now, are the only two electable parties in our nation.

I mean we can look at just one such current topic. Militarizing our police. Now according to our founding Fathers, the citizens have a right to bare arms in the event that our government becomes corrupt to the point of needing a militia to overthrow it. Yet our government is adding their first line of defense, our police, with military equipment, that if continued, would make it nearly impossible to do so.

Isn't that a further threat to our rights on some level? I mean we can get off track into social programs and the like that have nothing to do with this topic or we can concentrate on the topic at hand.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

My post fits exactly within the discussion at hand.

I stated we are going to have that problem earlier. The worst thing to do is sit back and say nothing. Call your congressman, senator, state rep, and complain your butt off. Try to organize, like the Tea Party did. Get your feelings about a subject known.

My reasoning for the DoEd and others, is that we can govern ourselves better locally than the fed ever can. That needs to be said often. The more people get involved, the less chance there is of that government being taken from us.

Now that you have explained what you pose we each do given our current situation, it makes a lot of sense to me.

And while I do agree with you about education in general, I still believe there needs to be somewhat of a standard curricular in regards to English, Math and Science so everyone has an equal opportunity to be prepared for the job world. The reasoning behind this is that the job market goes well beyond a state level. If we let each state or district set every guideline, there is a great deal of chance that many may graduate high school without having the skills needed on the grand scheme of things.

Not that it's not already happening, but some standard in the basics I feel need to be a given. Also, what happens when we see states do things like this?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/a...6692_story.html

Basically they wish to leave out parts of our national history that show anything negative. To selectively leave out anything they don't consider to be Patriotic.

To me there's a fine line between teaching children, and indoctrination.

Another awful evil is when the standards are used to create tests that measure basic thinking, one method of learning, and allow Pearson to profit billions of dollars off of our kids.

Who's at fault when the kids don't perform on shoddy tests? Pearson? Nope, blame the teachers!

I disagree with the idea of certain standards in math, English, or science, and I also think it's part of the problem. When you set these standards, most teachers will teach up to the level of that standard, not beyond. I think we need to change our educational system to more fit the need of the student. Some learn faster, some slower, and different kids have different interests. But, we should always push for excellence in learning. Once again, I believe that can be determined closer to the local government. The lack of a standard curriculum also leads to more competition between states and localities.

I remember when I was taking German in high school, we discussed how German education works. There is a high school, that teaches mostly advanced skills, then a middle school, that teaches general education, and a lower school, that teaches trades. You are placed in a school due to your attributes and attitudes in learning. A student is also able to move up or down, depending on performance, as some students don't find their niche until later. Not all kids are destined for college.

I also think we need to teach patriotism in schools. I remember when we were in the middle of the cold war, we never had people questioning if it was proper to fly the American flag. We chanted "USA" when we were in competition against other countries, and most of us were proud to be Americans. Yes, the US has done some bad things, but we've also done a lot of good in the country. None of us are responsible for any crimes of the past, and we should always do our best to make sure they don't happen again.

I agree with this idea and the idea of more local control, but given the history of locally controlled schools I would prefer SOME national standards.

I've had students who I thought would have no problems if they were learning some farming skills or machinist skills.

The idea of the Core Curriculum is understandable, but it's pretty limited in what we should be educating our students.

Just as an add on to this - we hosted a German exchange student for a few years and as a Junior in HS here in the US, the math she was taking was identical to what she learned in 8th grade...Because the school was not IB, she had to repeat the year that she was here due to the lower standards..she and her sister took the college placement tests in Germany and apparently the better you do, the cheaper the tuition will be...she got a free ride and her sister didn't make it in - of which the apparently push you toward trades or something.

As long as we have minimum standards as only a baseline - not a goal or objective.

I have 2 kids - both exact same education and most of the same teachers. My daughter struggles with everything Math while my son is a natural. She studies and studies (and has a tutor) and struggles to get a C at the higher math levels. My son just gets it and get's As & B's. She is geared more toward business and Marketing and film while my son is moving toward engineering.

I'm not sure if the issues we have are more of the curriculum standards or just the teaching styles..probably not much has changed when I was in school where the focus was more about getting the A than really understanding the material - just changing that mindset would do wonders, IMHO.

Germany has two paths for students. One is more academic and the other more trades based. You test into one of these paths at a relatively young age, I believe around 3rd or 4th grade. You're pretty much stuck in that path for life.

The advantage is, both schools are set up for the kids to get the attention they need. The more academic path will progress faster as they're not held back by the slower students, while the other will better prepare them for the real world.

The negative is, at such a young age there are a bunch of kids who may end up in a path they ultimately shouldn't be on.

My youngest son put his education to work and landed a nice job as a Monback at a large trucking company.

I think we have a miscommunication. I wasn't really talking about standard testing, but more of a minimum standard of credits and abilities that would be a minimum standard in order to graduate high school.

As far as Patriotism goes, I have no problem with that as long as the history is comprehensive. I don't believe our students should be indoctrinated into believing our history is squeaky clean. There is a lot of good that can be taught about our nations past, as well as some bad. For the most part, our nation has learned from the bad and made changes accordingly.

When I grew up a lot of the negative history of our nation was left out of the classroom. In the end, I felt more of our history class was carefully selected and it felt a lot more like propaganda than actual history. One thing about history is if you don't learn from it, you're bound to make the same mistakes.