When Traffic Stops Go Bad -- How Cops Demean Black and Brown Men

[pipoman]

97. The nature of government is to always push

for more and more power. The people will accept some, then they push back. Again, I am not talking about armed insurrection, I am talking about peaceful protests, about civil disobedience, about exerting power of the polls, about organizing with like thinking people, about speaking loudly in opposition. These tactics and others have driven policy for many years. Every movement within the populace has people who, on a continuum, are more active (maybe even radical) and progressively less vocal and radical. We have seen this with the Occupy movement. Some practiced civil disobedience, a few crossed the line into criminal behavior, some supported through outspokenness, some were occupying long term, some went out on weekends, some went out for a day or two, some vocally supported without going out at all. The movement has gotten the attention of government.

Back in the early 1990's when the Clinton administration began proposing radical gun control legislation, many "militias" arose, which were made up of people who felt very strongly against these proposals. Some (the most radical on the continuum) crossed the line into criminal activities. Most were associating peacefully with others who believed the same as they, they collaborated about proposed legislation, about candidates for office, and about responses to proposed legislation. The most radical on the continuum, Tim McVey, committed an unspeakable act admonished by almost everyone within the movement. The Clinton administration knew that if the far side of the opposition was this radical, there were many more who were very disgruntled. The Clinton administration quickly settled on proposals much less controversial than their earlier proposals. The adoption of "The Brady Bill" with the mandate of an instant check system instead of a waiting period, and the institution of the failed assault weapons ban with a 10 year sunset, and grandfathering of existing weapons which were classified as "assault weapons", were the compromises. After these compromises were reached, no other proposals for gun control were suggested by the administration. The interest in the militias died down and people accepted what was enacted. Then came the 1994 election cycle and many elected officials who supported the assault weapons ban lost their seats and were replaced by people who opposed the ban...including some Democrats. In 2004, with a Democratic congress, the assault weapons ban was allowed to sunset, even though Bush stated he would sign legislation if it were presented to him...it never happened. I believe there may be, ultimately, legislation which will look something like this, in response to the Connecticut shooting, but no actual bans..just a guess.

I believe we are going to see similar movements with 'the war on drugs' over the next decade. The federal government will drag it's feet, but ultimately will succumb to the pressure of the populace.

These are examples of "healthy fear of the populace" (there are historically many more). Popular movements have always driven government. These movements are only possible through the use of enumerated civil rights/liberties by the populace...and they work the way they were designed.