Armed and Dangerous: Private Police on the March

Covert Action Quarterly ^ | by Mike Zielinski

[Just mythoughts]

"Won't say its communist, per se, but it is most assuredly elitist..."


Seems that if the law abiding citizenry is a disaster away from the removal of their second amendment rights, elitists might consider their front line of paid protection is just as venerable. Seems as though it might concern the elitist they are more protected by maintaining protection at all levels as a neutralizer.

Who will protect the elitists from their hired help???

[ctdonath2]

So ... what's the problem?
Those who can afford to rent security do so ... what's the problem?

The article is a lot of hype and hysteria and misdirection, without actually demonstrating what the problem is. I don't see the problem; reading between the hysteria, the article shows how readily available and useful and GOOD such rentable security is.

[saleman]

O.K. I'll admit I didn't read all the piece but I call BullShit!

If I choose to hire security guards to protect my business or property what business is it of anyone else's? If someone is hurt or killed from negligence then let the courts handle it. There's your accountability.

Like I said, I didn't read the whole dang thing, was there any mention of these Hollywood celebs or professional athletes or Rappers and their bodyguards?

[ctdonath2]

He has even used [state police] in intimidating situations where he has verbally threatened private citizens.

Red herring. That's a gov't official abusing police for his own criminal acts. Actually sounds like a good reason to have private security firms available to private citizens.

[Calpernia]

>>>was there any mention of these Hollywood celebs or professional athletes or Rappers and their bodyguards?

Not that I saw.

[Calpernia]

What is a red herring?

[monday]

"Yet, you see nothing wrong with the people outside "gated communities" being looted blind, either by "unofficial" crooks, or "official" crooks, simply because the didn't pay some logo'ed corporation to protect their property, but instead felt they could, and should do it themselves in a more cost-effective manner. Now, what does that make you?"

Of course I see something wrong with that. At this point evacuating people who are still there is pointless. I hope anyone who loses property or pets due to the forced evacuation sues the hell out the idiots who ordered the evacuation. In fact I would give them a pass if they shot the people trying to evacuate them.

The time for a forced evacuation, if there was a time, was BEFORE the looting.

[ctdonath2]

I had no problem reading it.

I agree with AlaskaErik - and I had no problem reading the article either. Lots of complaining about "the rich" hiring private security; nothing indicating why that's actually a problem.

[Calpernia]

It really does not leave me with warm fuzzies that a foreign country has financial interests in our security.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1483299/posts?page=59#59

[Calpernia]

Then why are you on this thread?

[ctdonath2]

www.switchboard.com is your friend.

[Just mythoughts]

I think you are correct. Seems as though the 2 amendment only applies to those who can afford to hire protection. Obviously the thought never entered their minds that their hired help is only as good as the character of the individual hired to bear the arms.

There does seem to be this paralyzing fear that the subject is about dividing up their possessions rather than considering their own security might be a bigger threat to them than law abiding citizens who no longer are allowed to have their 2nd amendment rights.

[infowarrior]

It really does not leave me with warm fuzzies that a foreign country has financial interests in our security.

Globalism, don't you know...

the infowarrior

[ctdonath2]

this industry is thriving and apparently untouched.

Maybe because it's doing it's job?

regular citizens are rounded up and their protection is removed from them

Maybe that's because the regulars give in.

Rent-a-cops, as depicted in the article, are not the problem, they are an example of the solution working.

[Just mythoughts]

"Maybe that's because the regulars give in."


In NO there was no choice but to give in or give it up, by the regulars, however the "gated communities" are left in tact.

So that being the case who is going to protect the "gated community" from their own hired help???

Now I am not advocating that "gated communities" be plundered, looted and burned, which apparently is the distance most on this subject can think.

[ctdonath2]

What I want to know is why the "gated communities" are left in tact and the regular citizen is disarmed.

Answer is simple and indicated (buried) in the article: gated communities are ready to deal with looters and other criminals - even if the perps have badges. As such, criminals (even badged ones) move on to easier pickin's.

[infowarrior]

Of course I see something wrong with that. At this point evacuating people who are still there is pointless. I hope anyone who loses property or pets due to the forced evacuation sues the hell out the idiots who ordered the evacuation.

Unfortunately, and to be honest you haven't been alone in this, the tone, tenor, and words you chose conveyed a totally different meaning, which is what got some other folks upset. Those of us here who a decrying the situation in NOLA are not faulting those who hired private security companies to protect their property. What we are condemmning, in no uncertain terms, is the blatant double-standard being applied, which is unConstitutional, and inherently unAmerican. It pleases me to see that you are on the same page, even if in your original words, it appeared that you were not...

the infowarrior

[trubluolyguy]

Gee I don't know why everyone gets upset about things like this, after all it's just the free market at work.


Hell, it worked for the gas prices why not for this too?

[ctdonath2]

Sounds like an excellent reason to hire your own security.

[Just mythoughts]

"Answer is simple and indicated (buried) in the article: gated communities are ready to deal with looters and other criminals - even if the perps have badges. As such, criminals (even badged ones) move on to easier pickin's."


This article is foundation for a discussion on what is not what the writer of this piece claims.

Now human nature being what it is, and NO is what brings forth the discussion it is NOT about taking from the haves and giving to the have NOTS.

It is the fundamental 2nd amendment right and how in a declared disaster that right is null and void by virtue of said disaster.

Now in terms of a disaster, if said person chooses to and pays for protection that is not the issue. The issue is what is it about declaration of a disaster that give government the authority and power to remove only certain individual, legal law abiding citizens 2nd amendment rights.

The hired help no matter how good, is only as good as the character of the individuals hired. What is to stop the hired help from being part and parcel of the looters inc.?