Law enforcement officers made the national news as of late in Ferguson Missouri accused of being too military-like. However, who can trust the spin-doctors in the main street media? Are the police really out of control, or is the media spinning the debate in an effort to promote gun control? I took to the streets of Ferguson for a first hand look and to a conclusion that was more than expected.
An old adage of war states, “There is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole.” One can say much the same about the police. When facing off with the police, protestors and media claim the police have too many weapons, riot gear that makes them look more like an occupying military force than law enforcement and are using military-style tactics. On the other hand, police officers are not paid to be moving targets, bullet sponges, crash test dummies or fireproof clothing testers. So where should we draw the line between the safety and security of law enforcement and civil liberties?
Now, before we get too far down the rabbit hole, let’s put a few matters into perspective. First, while I have heard a lot of rhetoric from people who certainly must be much braver than me… who wouldn’t or hasn’t called the police at one time or another to settle a dispute or investigate a crime? Let’s not forget, we are talking about the people who respond to the call when others dial 9-1-1 and run away or shelter in place. Sure, in the movies the little guy gets revenge, but we are talking about reality here. If it were your loved one, son, daughter, spouse, mother or father on the front line, would you not want them to have every layer of protection possible? After all, the police are not gladiators to be sent into the ring for a blood sport.
That is not to say fault cannot be assigned though. The Shooter’s Log has an art director who is launched into the stratosphere every time a photo is submitted with someone’s finger on the trigger and for good reason. Firearm safety articles continually preach muzzle discipline and admonish shooters to NEVER point a firearm toward ANYTHING they do not intend to destroy. So, why have the police been so willing to surface from armored vehicles with a rifle and scan the crowd through the riflescope? Since when is it okay to clear a McDonald’s using firearms like laser pointers toward citizens who have not presented a danger? What about the out-of-control officer pointing his long gun and yelling, “Get back or I will bleeping kill you!” Of course we can find fault—justified fault—in anything scenario given enough time and people. However this still begs the question, “Have they not trained in muzzle discipline or is there a justification for any of these behaviors?”
I do not have the answers, I am merely posing the questions in an effort to promote debate and hear a wide selection or reader’s points of view.
Gun Control Rhetoric
Most people reading now are not in Ferguson nor are they professional law enforcement, but that is not to say the debate does not affect you personally. Have you considered how many times the gun grabbers have accused AR-15 owners as having no legitimate reason to own a ‘military-style assault rifle?’ How many assaults have pro gun rights groups endured over the number of rounds legal gun owners should be able to have in a magazine? What about caliber selection, the ‘lethality’ of personal defense ammunition? If the military tops their rifles with one of Trijicon’s ACOGs, should you or the police be banned from doing the same as a result? After all, if the military uses it or something like it, the antis will consider it “military-like.” In case you have not been paying attention that is where this argument could be heading.
A Backdoor Gun Control Movement?
So, is the media’s current narrative doing little more than playing into the hands of those who seek to eliminate the Second Amendment? How often have we stated that if it was good enough for law enforcement, civilians should have the same rights for self-defense? Do we want to support a narrative that builds a slippery slope to potentially losing our own gun rights? Moreover, it will not stop at guns, how does the ‘military-style’ rhetoric play into other areas of equipment. What about gas masks, plate carriers, MOLLE gear, ammo cans, military collectables such as military helmets, camo, Alice packs, load bearing gear and more. The media’s current narrative could blur the lines to the point not only would we lose our Second Amendment rights, but the rhetoric could be taken so far that we lose the right to own much, much more.
Do you feel there is a danger to the current ‘military-style’ rhetoric used against the police or is it justified with police departments that are simply out of control and over equipped? Or do you find truth on both sides? Please share your thoughts and opinions in the comment section.