Gun cameras and Anti-gun hypocrisy

It's 2013 and we have no national consensus on monitoring the constabulary. Some police departments have cameras on their uniformed officers, others just record sound alone, and even one or two have cameras mounted on their service weapons. Why gun cameras in particular have not become universal for law enforcement remains a puzzle to me. I have heard it is because of "budget restraints" but this is hard to believe considering that funds and asset forfeiture from drug busts provides many billions of dollars to law enforcement in this country annually (a conflict of interest to be sure as narcotic sales support law enforcement the latter of which can and do become dependent on that revenue stream). It seems to me if the police have money for guns, they can shell out money for gun cameras. 

I for one think gun cameras for police service weapons is just common sense. If society is to grant the police broad powers of arrest, even power over life and death, then it seems only reasonable that they should be held to account every time a weapon is fired. What possible objections could there be to this arrangement? Yet when the citizens go to the police to inquire about implementing this technology regime, they are rebuffed. In other words, the people who even the anti-gun crowd thinks should have guns flat out refuse to be monitored in the use of said guns. How does an anti-gun Brady Kampf mouseketeer reconcile the unwillingness of the authority to accept oversight given their insistence that all "dangerous forms" be regulated for maximum safety and responsibility? 

I have included pictures to show that gun cameras are pre-digital in the implementation and so it is not a question of technology or cost. Also I have included a pick of a VieVu wearable digital camera that I believe is the future of individual public AND private liability protection. 

While I would not go so far as to mandate that all Concealed Carry citizens mount a gun camera or other recording device on their firearms or person, I would highly recommend it. When the technology becomes more affordable, I believe most concealed carry permit holders will migrate to this technology to protect themselves from liability. Imagine how the George Zimmerman Trayvon Martin case would play out with actual footage, for example. 

But again, I am perhaps speaking to the wrong audience. The great divide between the private citizen who owns and bears arms and those citizens who wish to see all civilian arms confiscated, curtailed, etc. comes down to this: the anti-gun crowd doesn't object to violence, or firearms use/misuse so long as the ones doing the mis-using are wearing uniforms. State sponsored violence is never questioned, while an individual who inflicts violence is cause for national (and hypocritical) outrage. Case in point, where was the wailing and gnashing of teeth when the US army killed 9 children in Afghanistan? 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/03/world/asia/03afghan.html

Or when ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/world/asia/afghanistan-civilians-killed-american-soldier-held.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

...and so on. 

The fact that the ant-gun quarter is energized when white, middle class children hit the floor but not the brown, poverty stricken children of the third world is just more evidence that 1. anti-gunners are racists, imperialist chauvinists who approve of bombing the third world into bone meal if it will usher in neo-liberal Mcworld, and 2. are hard core authoritarian bootlicks who worship the state and oppose individual rights over a hive-mind and completely amoral collective. 

If 1. and 2. were not the case then where is your outrage and calls to confiscate or severely curtail or monitor and hold accountable for the means and manner in which the military, and the local police operate? It's non-existent. And that hypocrisy and mendacious servility is why this NRA member will never, ever ever trust an anti-gun hypocrite.