With the situation in Ferguson, MO, the increasing indistinguishability between civilian law enforcement and storm troopers with military-grade weapons has become frighteningly apparent. Is this a necessary escalation for the police or is it part of a larger movement in the government to intentionally blur those lines......and if so, for what purpose?
In some urban situations where gangs and such are very well armed, I think the police probably need to be at least equally armed as the criminals, but to show up to every demonstration in full riot gear, in APC's, and wearing camo fatigues is a bit much. Also, I think the federal agencies stocking up on millions of rounds of ammo and massive amounts of military-grade weaponry is highly suspicious.....as if they have been told to prepare for civil collapse and anarchy......like they know it's coming. And maybe some of that ideology is trickling down to local law enforcement, as they are the first line of law and order if that eventuality ever happens. I don't think it's all a connected conspiracy to prepare for an intentional collapse of the economy, but at the very least, it shows a widening rift of distrust on the part of civil libertarians, of "authorities" be they civilian or domestic military.
All I know is the line between civilian law enforcement and the military is troublingly blurred. Combine that with Obama's promise to create a "civilian defense force" whatever the hell that is, that is as well armed, trained, and funded as the military, and the pieces of the heavy-hand of government puzzle start to fall scarily into place.
How do you see these situations(police with military weapons, and government agencies stocking up on weapons and ammo), disparate or connected?