Because make believe IEDs are gonna get you and your kids!

http://blog.chron.com/txpotomac/2012/07/....

Quote:

Texas and U.S. facing growing threat of domestic IEDs

Improvised explosive devices have claimed the lives and limbs of thousands of American soldiers across Iraq and Afghanistan.

And now officials say the devilish devices are posing a growing threat across Texas and the United States.

The accused shooter in the Aurora, Colo., movie theater massacre, James Holmes, allegedly deployed IEDs in his apartment, prompting federal law enforcement agencies to look into possible links to domestic or foreign-based terrorism.

“The domestic IED threat from both homegrown terrorists and global threat networks is real and presents a significant security challenge for the United States and our international partners,” Army Lt. Gen. Michael Barbero, director of the Pentagon’s so-called Joint Improvised Explosive Device Defeat Organization, warned Congress in classified testimony in mid-July.

The growing concern is prompting urgent cooperation between U.S. military experts who are familiar with the devices and civilian law enforcement officers who are not.

But legal restrictions on the activities of U.S. armed forces are slowing crucial collaboration, insiders complain. Federal laws dating back to the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 limit the use of U.S. armed forces in domestic law enforcement and training — impediments some members of Congress are pressing to change.

This is freaking ridiculous. They are making it sound like the US is Iraq around 2004.

It's for the chilrenz, we assure you!

Thanks drug warriors! Or wait those ied are probably from the pitched battle between budwiser and jack Daniels. Fersure

Quote:

impediments some members of Congress are pressing to change.

What's the ****ing point? The armed forces controlled by the local municipality is NO different from the armed forces controlled by the feds, except maybe the locals have much looser rules of engagement and are easier to control by both the feds and the locals. This country once declared open season on pieces of **** like this...

Low, it wasn't the drug warriors alone. The feds where already like this over guns and nothing during the 90s. It was only mater of time before they got a hold of the local cops. I'm sure that was Clinton's goal with all those cop bills in the 90s and Bush's in the 00s. Centralized funding and control is the problem. Decentralization of both power and funding is the solution.

You could pretty much call anything that might blow-up an "IED." Do you have the gall to have a can of gasoline in your garage? Well, that is an "IED."

LOL! They've got their standing army with the militarized police forces.

I maintain that they also got around the 3rd Amendment with in the last couple of decades. The British would be in awe of the simplicity of the scheme:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Amend....

Quote:

No soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Quote:

Text of the amendment echoed the English Bill of Rights 1689 which stated the late King James the Second ... did endeavour to subvert and extirpate ... the laws and liberties of this kingdom ... by raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law.

In 1765, the British parliament enacted the first of the Quartering Acts, requiring the American colonies to pay the costs of British soldiers serving in the colonies, and requiring that if the local barracks provided insufficient space, that the colonists provide space for the troops to live in alehouses, inns, and livery stables. After the Boston Tea Party, the Quartering Act of 1774 was enacted; it was one of the Intolerable Acts that pushed the colonies toward revolution. The later Quartering Act authorized British troops to be quartered wherever necessary, including in private homes.[1]

For that reason, the quartering of troops was cited as a grievance in the United States Declaration of Independence: [King George III] has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: ...For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us.

At the 1788 Virginia Ratifying Convention, when debating the ratification of the new United States Constitution, Patrick Henry stated, "One of our first complaints, under the former government, was the quartering of troops among us. This was one of the principal reasons for dissolving the connection with Great Britain. Here we may have troops in time of peace. They may be billeted in any manner — to tyrannize, oppress, and crush us."[1] Henry was objecting to the Constitution's lack of adequate guarantees of civil liberties.[2] Later, following the recommendation of the convention, the Third Amendment, along with the others that now form the Bill of Rights, was proposed by Congress on September 25, 1789. The adoption by ratification by three-fourths of the states was completed on December 15, 1791.[3]

Several revisions were proposed before its adoption, which chiefly differed in the way in which peace and war were distinguished (including the possibility of a situation, such as unrest, which was neither peace nor war), and whether the executive or the legislature would have the authority to authorize quartering.[4]

Quote:

Case law

The Third Amendment is among the least cited sections of the U.S. Constitution.[4] There have been no major Supreme Court cases concerning violations of the Third Amendment, mainly because the quartering problem has not recurred since the American Revolution.

Right to privacy

The Third Amendment was once invoked as helping establish an implicit right to privacy in the Constitution. This happened in the majority opinion by Justice William O. Douglas in Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 484 (1965) which cited the amendment as implying a belief that an individual's home should be free from agents of the state.[4]

So, instead of putting the soldiers/police directly IN the houses, you just make it so ALL the peasants have to pay "property taxes" on their houses under threat of seizure by the State. Then, you give the standing army of police-soldiers SWEET pay & pension benefits from the money collected at gunpoint.

Start a "Drug War" so you can kick in any peasant's door whenever you feel like it, launch 30,000 drones to monitor the peasants, and use remote eavesdropping devices to invade the peasant's privacy from afar (GPS, parabolic listening devices, WIFI radar, infrared, etc.).

"We're not quartering troops" - BRILLIANT! BRILLIANT!

Damn, it's time.

It's SO ****ing time.