Law Enforcement = The State. A truly conservative viewpoint does not desire a powerful state on “the cutting edge”.
I suggest you strongly reconsider your viewpoint. It would have horrified our ideological forebears.
One might say the British were on “the cutting edge” of security when they made the abuses described in part by James Otis (who was making a case against writs of assistants):
“Now, one of the most essential branches of English liberty is the freedom of one’s house. A man’s house is his castle; and whilst he is quiet, he is as well guarded as a prince in his castle. This writ, if it should be declared legal, would totally annihilate this privilege. Custom-house officers may enter our houses when they please; we are commanded to permit their entry. Their menial servants may enter, may break locks, bars, and everything in their way; and whether they break through malice or revenge, no man, no court can inquire. Bare suspicion without oath is sufficient.”
(He lost that particular case, but one of those in attendance that day was John Adams.)
Reflecting on that day, Adams wrote:
“Every man of an immense crowded audience appeared to me to go away, as I did, ready to take arms against Writs of Assistance. Then and there was the first scene of the first act of opposition to the arbitrary claims of Great Britain. Then and there the child Independence was born.”
The Anti-Federalists took a dim view on The State being on the “cutting edge” of such matters. The Founders fought a War over England’s refusal to honor the Castle doctrine in the colonies (among other grievances)
Even Alexander Hamilton warned against it (The Federalist #8):
“Safety from external danger is the most powerful director of national conduct. Even the ardent love of liberty will, after a time, give way to its dictates. The violent destruction of life and property incident to war, the continual effort and alarm attendant on a state of continual danger, will compel nations the most attached to liberty to resort for repose and security to institutions which have a tendency to destroy their civil and political rights. To be more safe, they at length become willing to run the risk of being less free.”
And think about this:
“One of [America’s] greatest strengths is that the military is responsive to civilian authority and that we do not allow the Army, Navy, and the Marines and the Air Force to be a police force. History is replete with countries that allowed that to happen. Disaster is the result.” —Marine Lt. General Stephen G. Olmstead in his 1987 testimony before the U.S. Congress.
I suggest you study history before you make any more statements about how important it is for The State to remain “on the cutting edge of preparedness”.
LOL
Well said, and thanks for posting. I'd be totally in favor of limiting police to six-shot revolvers. They don't need more than that.