Barney Fife, Meet Delta Force

10 years ago

I heard about it on the news recently - the equipment, that is.

The question asked (I think it was on FOX) was whether local police are properly trained and mentally conditioned to work with this level of assault equipment.

The reason there is no outcry?

No other news stations covered this that I saw.....it's a "re-gifting" of equipment and our opinion was not sought not required. There was nothing we could do about it as we weren't told until after the fact.

I can perhaps see use along the border on drug routes - but that's it.

I can see no justification for using these when conducting a home search anywhere in this country.

A big point in the article is "why now"? Crime is lower than it was so why is THIS administration/military complex handing out major para-military equipment???

Before someone posts angrily "what do you mean by that"...here's exactly what I mean.

We are in a time when we don't want to go to war - we want out of the wars we're in - we avoid confrontations on our borders - we avoid confrontations with other countries - we are focused on higher minimum wage and more services/benefits for the poor and equality and on and on....we talk about anti-gun...blah blah. These are theoretically concepts of peace and harmony...but at the same time we are arming the equivalent of locally based govt sanctioned militias.

Think about it. What are we preparing for?

[ 4 ] Thanks

Signature

Saving one dog will not change the world - but the world changes forever for that one dog

***

Your comfort zone is where your dreams go to die.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9315945].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

There is a reason we had separation of police and military.

Anyone who sees this and still yaps about disarming citizens fails to have any redeeming education in history.

Thom - I wrote an article a few years back about microwave weapons. Our gov has them and there is also an action that allows use of the weapon on our own people. They say it's safe. It's not. If I can dig that article up I might be able to find a link to that "permit" for use on us.

My blood just runs cold when I see the way our police have been militarized. This is not the action of a "free" nation.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316450].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by HeySal

There is a reason we had separation of police and military.

Anyone who sees this and still yaps about disarming citizens fails to have any redeeming education in history.

Thom - I wrote an article a few years back about microwave weapons. Our gov has them and there is also an action that allows use of the weapon on our own people. They say it's safe. It's not. If I can dig that article up I might be able to find a link to that "permit" for use on us.

My blood just runs cold when I see the way our police have been militarized. This is not the action of a "free" nation.

Wrong thread Sal

I know you and I talked about them when you where here.
The two guys here had theirs all built, but needed financing for the vehicle to mount it on.
They tried getting it from a couple Jewish organizations, saying they could use it to kill Muslims in the US.
One organization turned them down and the other dropped a dime on them to the FBI.
Supposedly when the FBI got a hold of the weapon they said "yeah it will work".

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316461].message }}

HeySal

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Wrong thread Sal

I know you and I talked about them when you where here.
The two guys here had theirs all built, but needed financing for the vehicle to mount it on.
They tried getting it from a couple Jewish organizations, saying they could use it to kill Muslims in the US.
One organization turned them down and the other dropped a dime on them to the FBI.
Supposedly when the FBI got a hold of the weapon they said "yeah it will work".

A little sidetracked - but not the wrong thread. The point was that the weapon is severely harmful........and was okayed for use against our own citizens.

We have many agencies being given powers of militia, though. Exactly why does the EPA need militia power? Or the IRS? It's a mockery of the "republic"......which at this point no longer exists. We're an Oligarchy now. Anyone with lots and lots of cash can have their own militia to use against US citizens as desired.

Thanks

Signature

Sal
When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
Beyond the Path

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316898].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

A lot of people posting on this thread aren't going to like this, but here goes anyway.

The situation described above is the end result of the growing inequality in society. These paramilitary forces are to protect the 1%. As more and more wealth flows to them at the expense of everyone else, and the complete destruction of the middle class becomes a reality, people will rise up against it. They always have done.

Given a choice between sharing their obscene wealth with everyone else and living happily ever after, and fighting to the death to protect what is "theirs", the 1% will always choose to fight.

The sad part about all of this is that the 1% have managed to convince about half of the rest of society to vote for the 1%.

The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was to convince the poor to vote for the rich - Unknown

If you really want to know how this situation has arisen, and what can be done about it, I strongly recommend a read of Thomas Pikkety's "Capital In the 21st Century".

Sadly though, about half will reject the premise of that book because the 1% have convinced them that the 1% have the rest of societies interests at heart, at the same time as they're shipping high paid/skilled jobs overseas and slashing conditions for what's left.

So, you end up with heavily armed goons, paid by the 1% to impose their fascist agenda on their fellow citizens.

I can hire one half of the working class to kill the other half. Jay Gould

As a misdirection, they'll try and convince everyone that it's all the fault of the government, when in actual fact it's the 1% that is directing the government to impose this situation.

Like I said, a lot of you won't like that, but read Pikkety with an open mind, and look at what's going on around you including situations like the one this thread is about.

[ 5 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316511].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

A lot of people posting on this thread aren't going to like this, but here goes anyway.

The situation described above is the end result of the growing inequality in society. These paramilitary forces are to protect the 1%. As more and more wealth flows to them at the expense of everyone else, and the complete destruction of the middle class becomes a reality, people will rise up against it. They always have done.

Given a choice between sharing their obscene wealth with everyone else and living happily ever after, and fighting to the death to protect what is "theirs", the 1% will always choose to fight.

The sad part about all of this is that the 1% have managed to convince about half of the rest of society to vote for the 1%.

If you really want to know how this situation has arisen, and what can be done about it, I strongly recommend a read of Thomas Pikkety's "Capital In the 21st Century".

Sadly though, about half will reject the premise of that book because the 1% have convinced them that the 1% have the rest of societies interests at heart, at the same time as they're shipping high paid/skilled jobs overseas and slashing conditions for what's left.

So, you end up with heavily armed goons, paid by the 1% to impose their fascist agenda on their fellow citizens.

As a misdirection, they'll try and convince everyone that it's all the fault of the government, when in actual fact it's the 1% that is directing the government to impose this situation.

Like I said, a lot of you won't like that, but read Pikkety with an open mind, and look at what's going on around you including situations like the one this thread is about.

Even without reading that book it's not hard to see that as the reality. Practically ever department of the govt. has it's own heavily armed "police force". Why do the EPA, BLM, USDA, IRS, and the FDA need assault vehicles and personal armed with combat gear and assault weapons. Yet they want to limit our access to any weapon they deem dangerous, to them.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316549].message }}

whateverpedia

10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

Even without reading that book it's not hard to see that as the reality. Practically ever department of the govt. has it's own heavily armed "police force". Why do the EPA, BLM, USDA, IRS, and the FDA need assault vehicles and personal armed with combat gear and assault weapons. Yet they want to limit our access to any weapon they deem dangerous, to them.

Ghandi managed to defeat a heavily armed powerful empire without guns.

The establishment irritates you - pull your beard, flick your face - to make you fight because once they've got you violent they know how to handle you. The only thing they don't know how to handle is non-violence and humour - John Lennon

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?

So that blind people can hate them as well.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316588].message }}

ThomM 10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

Ghandi managed to defeat a heavily armed powerful empire without guns.

As much as I agree with that I'm afraid if things continue going as they are with all the different federal departments suddenly having their own police forces (and using them) non-violence may not be an option.
We held peaceful non-violent protests in the 70's, this song is about what happened at one of them.

Ohio- Crosby, Stills, Nash and Young - YouTube
- [ 3 ] Thanks
Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316658].message }}

TimPhelan

10 years ago

Originally Posted by whateverpedia

The sad part about all of this is that the 1% have managed to convince about half of the rest of society to vote for the 1%.

If you really want to know how this situation has arisen, and what can be done about it, I strongly recommend a read of Thomas Pikkety's "Capital In the 21st Century".

Sadly though, about half will reject the premise of that book because the 1% have convinced them that the 1% have the rest of societies interests at heart, at the same time as they're shipping high paid/skilled jobs overseas and slashing conditions for what's left.

Yes, those who still believe in the trickle down economic bs. I have been slammed around here for being a party hack of some sort but the truth is I am really just against one party. I understand there is corruption throughout politics and among both major parties, but one party is definitely in it for the 1%. The difference is huge. I always say, if you vote for that party consistantly you are either a millionaire or a sucker.

[ 2 ] Thanks
4 replies

Signature

Over 50 Dating

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9320811].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Yes, those who still believe in the trickle down economic bs. I have been slammed around here for being a party hack of some sort but the truth is I am really just against one party. I understand there is corruption throughout politics and among both major parties, but one party is definitely in it for the 1%. The difference is huge. I always say, if you vote for that party consistantly you are either a millionaire or a sucker.

OK, so as one put it, you believe in trickle up poverty? MAKE UP YOUR MIND! If it isn't trickle down, then you should STOP blaming the banks and bosses and minimum wage, because you just excluded them! And do YOU ever vote outside of what we may all believe you vote? As for the party that is for the 1%, I don't believe it is that high! I think it is more like 0.1%, at least in the US, and they ARE! But they aren't the ones YOU are referring to!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9321521].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Yes, those who still believe in the trickle down economic bs. I have been slammed around here for being a party hack of some sort but the truth is I am really just against one party. I understand there is corruption throughout politics and among both major parties, but one party is definitely in it for the 1%. The difference is huge. I always say, if you vote for that party consistantly you are either a millionaire or a sucker.

And if you vote for the other one consistently, you are either misguided or intellectually dishonest.

I find lately that I am against both parties, one more than the other of course, but both still. I don't consider that either has a balanced agenda of what is best for the country as a whole.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9322810].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Yes, those who still believe in the trickle down economic bs.

I have been slammed around here for being a party hack of some sort but the truth is I am really just against one party.

I understand there is corruption throughout politics and among both major parties, but one party is definitely in it for the 1%. The difference is huge. I always say, if you vote for that party consistently you are either a millionaire or a sucker.

Tim, since the turn of the 20th century, one party beats the pants off the other party when it comes to economic performance - for non-wealthy Americans, in many, many categories measuring economic growth, management and living standards.

Paul Krugman has a good recent column that talks about the staying power of a really bad economic philosophy and how it has survived over the years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/op...nsas.html?_r=0

BTW...

The book "They're Not Even Close: Subtitled: Republican Harm America's Economy- It's Now a Proven Fact!...

...spells out the enormous differences in economic performance between the two majors over the last 100 years.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9323180].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Tim, since the turn of the 20th century, one party beats the pants off the other party when it comes to economic performance - for non-wealthy Americans, in many, many categories measuring economic growth, management and living standards.

Paul Krugman has a good recent column that talks about the staying power of a really bad economic philosophy and how it has survived over the years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/30/op...nsas.html?_r=0

BTW...

The book "They're Not Even Close: Subtitled: Republican Harm America's Economy- It's Now a Proven Fact!...

...spells out the enormous differences in economic performance between the two majors over the last 100 years.

They sure have done a good job of keeping the poor, poor and dependent on the govt. and helping the rich get richer.
But so have republicans.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9323241].message }}

TLTheLiberator 10 years ago

Originally Posted by ThomM

They sure have done a good job of keeping the poor, poor and dependent on the govt. and helping the rich get richer.
But so have republicans.

Maybe this will help you understand your problem(s)...

Why Did We Blow On Nintendo Games? - YouTube
- Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9323279].message }}
- ThomM 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator
  
  Maybe this will help you understand your problem...
  
  Why Did We Blow On Nintendo Games? - YouTube
  
  Maybe so, but nothing can help with your problem.
  Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record - Washington Times
  
  Thanks
  
  1 reply
  
  Signature
  
  Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
  Getting old ain't for sissy's
  As you are I was, as I am you will be
  You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9323311].message }}
  
  TLTheLiberator 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by ThomM
  
  Maybe so, but nothing can help with your problem.
  Poverty level under Obama breaks 50-year record - Washington Times
  
  And I wouldn't be surprised if close to the same thing happened to FDR who inherited the other major, major financial mess left behind by people with your economic philosophy.
  
  And don't bother trying to say its not your economic philosophy which as far as I'm concerned would be like you trying to say your arm isn't your arm.
  
  This ends my back and forth with you in this thread Seasoned, I mean Thom.
  
  But you go right ahead and have the last word.
  
  Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9323429].message }}

MikeAmbrosio

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TimPhelan

Yes, those who still believe in the trickle down economic bs. I have been slammed around here for being a party hack of some sort but the truth is I am really just against one party. I understand there is corruption throughout politics and among both major parties, but one party is definitely in it for the 1%. The difference is huge. I always say, if you vote for that party consistantly you are either a millionaire or a sucker.

That's just silly. Both parties are in it for the 1%. It's just that one is much better at hiding it and pointing the finger at the other about it.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9323333].message }}

TimPhelan 10 years ago

Originally Posted by MikeAmbrosio

That's just silly. Both parties are in it for the 1%. It's just that one is much better at hiding it and pointing the finger at the other about it.

Ahh yes. Mike the independent voter. The man of reason. The two parties are the same and only independents can see that. Thanks ole wise one.
- [ 1 ] Thanks
- 1 reply
Signature
Over 50 Dating
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9323435].message }}
- MikeAmbrosio 10 years ago
  
  Originally Posted by TimPhelan
  
  Ahh yes. Mike the independent voter. The man of reason. The two parties are the same and only independents can see that. Thanks ole wise one.
  
  And it always amazes me that party line thinkers believe independents can't see the differences between the parties...
  
  The benefit to being an independent is having the ability to see through party line BS.
  
  On BOTH sides.
  
  Both sides have their merits. And both sides have their complete and utter BS. And it's nice to be able to see through it
  
  [ 2 ] Thanks
  
  Signature
  
  Are you protecting your on line business? If you have a website, blog, ecommerce store you NEED to back it up regularly. Your webhost will only protect you so much. Check out Quirkel. Protect yourself.
  
  {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9323443].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Barney Fife Meets Delta Force | National Review Online

Why are very few people concerned about this? Do we really need police equipped with tools of war? You know if they have them, they'll find a reason to use them.

I've just looked at and thought about your question again and therefore I've retracted my thank you for your comments and would like to say...

... with somewhere in the neighborhood of 1200 armed so-called militia groups around the nation, ...

...perhaps its not such a bad idea for the locals to be armed to the teeth - just in case one of these groups decides to get frisky in all their misguided glory.

I wonder how long it would take for a local national guard unit to begin to deal with say 25-50 well armed so-called militia members who've decided to go on a rampage for their misguided cause in a decently populated area.

And sadly, they'll probably have a lot of support among the population from so-called loyal Americans.

I figure there's a good chance that most of the folks that supported the deadbeat ranger Cliven Bundy will also support armed action against this country.

Steve, you said yourself to me that more and more people are beginning to feel like that should be an not to remote option.

Folks can say what they will, but if these two idiots can get the idea to think they're starting some type of revolution then why can't a whole bunch of them get the same idea?

Killers of Las Vegas cops harbored anti-government ideology | Reuters

Whether these two idiots were in an organized militia or not, they harbor the same feelings about the federal gov that at least some of these so-called militia groups harbor and that can include a problem with the local govs also.

With around 1200 organized so-called militia groups with guns in America, the possibilities are endless.

So...

I'm a lot more comfortable with the police being heavily armed and ready for war, since those so-called militia groups are.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316541].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

I've just looked at and thought about your question again and therefore I've retracted my thank you for your comments and would like to say...

... with somewhere in the neighborhood of 1200 armed so-called militia groups around the nation, ...

...perhaps its not such a bad idea for the locals to be armed to the teeth - just in case one of these groups decides to get frisky in all their misguided glory.

I wonder how long it would take for a local national guard unit to begin to deal with say 25-50 well armed so-called militia members who've decided to go on a rampage for their misguided cause in a decently populated area.

And sadly, they'll probably have a lot of support among the population from so-called loyal Americans.

I figure there's a good chance that most of the folks that supported the deadbeat ranger Cliven Bundy will also support armed action against this country.

Steve, you said yourself to me that more and more people are beginning to feel like that should be an not to remote option.

Folks can say what they will, but if these two idiots can get the idea to think they're starting some type of revolution then why can't a whole bunch of them get the same idea?

Killers of Las Vegas cops harbored anti-government ideology | Reuters

Whether these two idiots were in an organized militia or not, they harbor the same feelings about the federal gov that at least some of these so-called militia groups harbor and that can include a problem with the local govs also.

With around 1200 organized so-called militia groups with guns in America, the possibilities are endless.

So...

I'm a lot more comfortable with the police being heavily armed and ready for war, since those so-called militia groups are.

Ahhh, the left's favorite boogey-man -- armed militia groups. Have no idea where you get the 1200 figure from (does two people with a rifle and right-wing views count as an 'armed militia group'?) but let's say it's accurate.

That's a huge danger, all these armed right-wingers running around the US hating the government.

Let's take the most dire pronouncement we can find on militias, from that bastion of 'nonpartisan' think tanks, the New America Foundation: Right-Wing Extremist Terrorism as Deadly a Threat as al Qaeda? | NewAmerica.org

By contrast, right-wing extremists have committed at least eight lethal terrorist attacks in the United States that have resulted in the deaths of nine people since 9/11, according to data compiled by the New America Foundation.

So we've established the right-wing extremists as deadly terrorists. Let's look the other direction (have no idea who this person is, but the linked PDF backs up the analysis): Militarization of American police: Skyrocketing SWAT team raids causing needless deaths of innocent suspects -- Society's Child -- Sott.net

"These raids bring unnecessary violence and provocation to nonviolent drug offenders, many of whom were guilty only of misdemeanors. The raids terrorize innocents when police mistakenly target the wrong residence. And they have resulted in dozens of needless deaths and injuries, not only of drug offenders, but also of police officers, children, bystanders, and innocent suspects."

Balko has hard numbers to backup these claims.

Since 1995, SWAT teams have botched 292 raids. A botched raid could be a raid where an innocent person is injured or killed, for example, or a raid where police enter the wrong house. Forty innocent people and 20 nonviolent offenders have been killed in raids since 1995.

Cato Institute whitepaper source: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or...paper_2006.pdf

A 'no-knock' warrant allows police to forcibly enter an area without announcement. Description here: No-knock warrant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The number of no-knock raids has increased from 3,000 in 1981 to more than 50,000 in 2005, according to Peter Kraska, a criminologist at Eastern Kentucky University in Richmond. Raids that lead to deaths of innocent people are increasingly common; since the early 1980s, 40 bystanders have been killed, according to the Cato Institute in Washington, D.C.

TL, I think you're afraid of the wrong boogey-man.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316727].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Ahhh, the left's favorite boogey-man -- armed militia groups. Have no idea where you get the 1200 figure from (does two people with a rifle and right-wing views count as an 'armed militia group'?) but let's say it's accurate.

That's a huge danger, all these armed right-wingers running around the US hating the government.

Let's take the most dire pronouncement we can find on militias, from that bastion of 'nonpartisan' think tanks, the New America Foundation: Right-Wing Extremist Terrorism as Deadly a Threat as al Qaeda? | NewAmerica.org

So we've established the right-wing extremists as deadly terrorists. Let's look the other direction (have no idea who this person is, but the linked PDF backs up the analysis): Militarization of American police: Skyrocketing SWAT team raids causing needless deaths of innocent suspects -- Society's Child -- Sott.net

Cato Institute whitepaper source: http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.or...paper_2006.pdf

A 'no-knock' warrant allows police to forcibly enter an area without announcement. Description here: No-knock warrant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

TL, I think you're afraid of the wrong boogey-man.

How about if I have concerns about both of them?

I think I should be concerned about 1200 armed groups in this country - many who profess anti-gov leanings - to say the least and many of whom don't like non white persons - of which I am one.

I'm getting the numbers from places like...

Record number of anti-government militias in USA

From another article...

Militias, Hate Groups Grow in Response to Minority Population Boom - ABC News

"According to the SPLC, the number of radical "anti-government" militia groups increased from 150 to 1,274 during the years of the #44.

Wow! Thanks #44.

And according to the article there are a few incidents that have already happened between these groups and locals...

There have been more homegrown domestic terrorism attacks by right-wing groups than by international terrorists during his presidency as well, Potok noted."

I say, so what if it's only 400-600 armed groups (with more than a few members) instead of 1200 or more? IMHO that's plenty.

What's to stop one or more of them from trying to become some sort of legends of the movement by taking on a local government and/or especially the feds?

I have a feeling a lot of them are not exactly a bunch of boy scouts and my concerns about them are warranted.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9317982].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

How about if I have concerns about both of them?

I think I should be concerned about 1200 armed groups in this country - many who profess anti-gov leanings - to say the least and many of whom don't like non white persons - of which I am one.

I'm getting the numbers from places like...

Record number of anti-government militias in USA

From another article...

Militias, Hate Groups Grow in Response to Minority Population Boom - ABC News

"According to the SPLC, the number of radical "anti-government" militia groups increased from 150 to 1,274 during the years of the #44.

Wow! Thanks #44.

And according to the article there are a few incidents that have already happened between these groups and locals...

There have been more homegrown domestic terrorism attacks by right-wing groups than by international terrorists during his presidency as well, Potok noted."

I say, so what if it's only 400-600 armed groups (with more than a few members) instead of 1200 or more? IMHO that's plenty.

What's to stop one or more of them from trying to become some sort of legends of the movement by taking on a local government and/or especially the feds?

I have a feeling a lot of them are not exactly a bunch of boy scouts and my concerns about them are warranted.

The SPLC has its own agenda, including total disarmament of civilians. Hardly a credible source. An essential part of their strategy is scare-mongering. Nothing brings in the donations like a good scare.

I will give you that certain groups don't like non-white people. There are idiots in the world. There are also non-white groups who don't like whites. One religion hates the others. This tribe is at war with that tribe. It is the way of the world, human nature at its worst.

Some of them aren't boy scouts by any stretch. But if any one of them came after you simply because of the color of your skin, I - and all of my guns, and many other people I know - would be on your side.

You made a remark a while back on a now-closed thread - I can't remember the exact wording, and I don't want to look it up - but it was something like how I would be on the wrong side of the civil rights battle. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes you paint with too wide a brush.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9318673].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

The SPLC has its own agenda, including total disarmament of civilians. Hardly a credible source. An essential part of their strategy is scare-mongering. Nothing brings in the donations like a good scare.

I will give you that certain groups don't like non-white people. There are idiots in the world. There are also non-white groups who don't like whites. One religion hates the others. This tribe is at war with that tribe. It is the way of the world, human nature at its worst.

Some of them aren't boy scouts by any stretch. But if any one of them came after you simply because of the color of your skin, I - and all of my guns, and many other people I know - would be on your side.

You made a remark a while back on a now-closed thread - I can't remember the exact wording, and I don't want to look it up - but it was something like how I would be on the wrong side of the civil rights battle. Nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes you paint with too wide a brush.

Sure SPLC has an agenda - who doesn't?

But it does not mean their numbers aren't accurate when it comes to hate groups and anti-gov militias.

You said...

Some of them aren't boy scouts by any stretch. But if any one of them came after you simply because of the color of your skin, I - and all of my guns, and many other people I know - would be on your side.

"You made a remark a while back on a now-closed thread - I can't remember the exact wording, and I don't want to look it up - but it was something like how I would be on the wrong side of the civil rights battle.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes you paint with too wide a brush."

I say...

Thanks for the sentiment.

And it had nothing to do with me thinking you're some sort of racist - which I don't. I just think you're as wrong as a $3 bill on many issues as I'm sure you do I.

You could have been sincerely against civil rights based on some sort of so-called principled states rights position - such as states have the right to do whatever they want within their states etc.

It stems from your many positions on the issues today as I believe they would relate - if you had lived throughout different periods of American history.

I was simply saying that you're so out of step with American history (with your attitudes and positions today)...

... that I wouldn't be surprised if you would somehow find a way to be against the civil rights movement.

To further clarify... I also said you're so out of step with American history that...

- You'd probably be a tory during the American revolution and would have also probably been one of those whispering in Washington's ear to not give up power and become a King and you also would have been working with the 5th column during the war of 1812.

Anyways...

All The Best!!

TL

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9321232].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Sure SPLC has an agenda - who doesn't?

But it does not mean their numbers aren't accurate when it comes to hate groups and anti-gov militias.

It means just that, given their criteria for inclusion into the 'hate group' category.

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

You said...

Some of them aren't boy scouts by any stretch. But if any one of them came after you simply because of the color of your skin, I - and all of my guns, and many other people I know - would be on your side.

"You made a remark a while back on a now-closed thread - I can't remember the exact wording, and I don't want to look it up - but it was something like how I would be on the wrong side of the civil rights battle.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Sometimes you paint with too wide a brush."

I say...

Thanks for the sentiment.

And it had nothing to do with me thinking you're some sort of racist - which I don't. I just think you're as wrong as a $3 bill on many issues as I'm sure you do I.

You could have been sincerely against civil rights based on some sort of so-called principled states rights position - such as states have the right to do whatever they want within their states etc.

There's nothing "so-called" about states' rights - it's the law of the land, if you care to read it. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution. However, I have never said - not once - that states have the right to "do whatever they want." They don't. That's in the Constitution, too. If you want to paint me with a particular brush, it would be that of a strict constructionist. I don't believe the Constitution is a 'living document', but it is also not written in stone. It is changeable, if the people want to change it.

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

It stems from your many positions on the issues today as I believe they would relate - if you had lived throughout different periods of American history.

I was simply saying that you're so out of step with American history (with your attitudes and positions today)...

... that I wouldn't be surprised if you would somehow find a way to be against the civil rights movement.

There are certain aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that I disagree with. There are other aspects that I wholeheartedly support. On the whole, it was needed. So, you would be wrong. I wouldn't have been against it.

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

To further clarify... I also said you're so out of step with American history that...

- You'd probably be a tory during the American revolution and would have also probably been one of those whispering in Washington's ear to not give up power and become a King and you also would have been working with the 5th column during the war of 1812.

Anyways...

All The Best!!

TL

I really don't understand how you come up with those conclusions, given what you know to be my distrust of government in general, and imperial lawless governance in particular (present administration especially, but previous ones also - haven't agreed with any of them, really). I'm astounded, actually.

All the best to you, too.

[ 1 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9322291].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

It means just that, given their criteria for inclusion into the 'hate group' category.

There's nothing "so-called" about states' rights - it's the law of the land, if you care to read it. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution. However, I have never said - not once - that states have the right to "do whatever they want." They don't. That's in the Constitution, too. If you want to paint me with a particular brush, it would be that of a strict constructionist. I don't believe the Constitution is a 'living document', but it is also not written in stone. It is changeable, if the people want to change it.

There are certain aspects of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that I disagree with. There are other aspects that I wholeheartedly support. On the whole, it was needed. So, you would be wrong. I wouldn't have been against it.

I really don't understand how you come up with those conclusions, given what you know to be my distrust of government in general, and imperial lawless governance in particular (present administration especially, but previous ones also - haven't agreed with any of them, really). I'm astounded, actually.

All the best to you, too.

You said...

However, I have never said - not once - that states have the right to "do whatever they want." They don't. That's in the Constitution, too.

I say...

I never said you personally said that states have the right to do whatever they want. I was just giving an example of how someone could couch their anti-civil rights position.

You said...

If you want to paint me with a particular brush, it would be that of a strict constructionist.

I don't believe the Constitution is a 'living document', but it is also not written in stone.

It is changeable, if the people want to change it.

I say...

You say it's not a living document but it is still also changeable?

What's the diff?

Thanks

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9322927].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by SteveJohnson

Barney Fife Meets Delta Force | National Review Online

Why are very few people concerned about this? Do we really need police equipped with tools of war? You know if they have them, they'll find a reason to use them.

Frankly, if what TL were talking about were true, the whole nation might have been taken back by force. The fact is that things haven't yet gotten to that point. When they DO, people may grow to LOVE the militias. We need SOMETHING to counter the garbage that is happening. TL, and his ilk, want something like the treaty of versailles.(WHICH, incidently, called for a full ban and destruction of weapons) It bankrupted a nation, started a militant workers party, created a maniacal leader, and ended up doing FAR worse than the opposite of what was intended. Maybe people like TL should look it up. If they look at that leader's history, they will see how it all ties together.

It USED to be that we had a big police force that used conventional fully legal weapons, and didn't train police much past what a civilian might be. There was a FAR smaller force with NEAR military level weapons and training called SWAT(Special Weapons And Tactics). SWAT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It would have been NICE if they had used such a force in the famous hollywood shooting!

Hollywood Shootout - High Incident Bandits -...

In the hollywood shootout, they reversed roles! The ROBBERS used SWAT tactics, and the police apparently used low end civilian weapons. I was THERE at the time! The police actually had to go to B&B GUN sales to get some DECENT weapons and ammo! That was a CIVILIAN store, and where I bought MY first gun!

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316592].message }}

TLTheLiberator

10 years ago

Originally Posted by seasoned

Frankly, if what TL were talking about were true, the whole nation might have been taken back by force. The fact is that things haven't yet gotten to that point. When they DO, people may grow to LOVE the militias. We need SOMETHING to counter the garbage that is happening. TL, and his ilk, want something like the treaty of versailles.(WHICH, incidently, called for a full ban and destruction of weapons) It bankrupted a nation, started a militant workers party, created a maniacal leader, and ended up doing FAR worse than the opposite of what was intended. Maybe people like TL should look it up. If they look at that leader's history, they will see how it all ties together.

It USED to be that we had a big police force that used conventional fully legal weapons, and didn't train police much past what a civilian might be. There was a FAR smaller force with NEAR military level weapons and training called SWAT(Special Weapons And Tactics).

SWAT - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia It would have been NICE if they had used such a force in the famous hollywood shooting!

In the hollywood shootout, they reversed roles! The ROBBERS used SWAT tactics, and the police apparently used low end civilian weapons. I was THERE at the time! The police actually had to go to B&B GUN sales to get some DECENT weapons and ammo! That was a CIVILIAN store, and where I bought MY first gun!

Steve

Thanks for making me laugh real, real hard!

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

"It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled. -- Mark Twain

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316611].message }}

seasoned 10 years ago

Originally Posted by TLTheLiberator

Thanks for making me laugh real, real hard!

OK, if you think THAT is funny, you will LOVE this!

Seattle Prepares for Robot Revolution by Setting $15 Minimum Wage - Hit & Run : Reason.com

Steve
- [ 2 ] Thanks
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316689].message }}

Alex Blades

10 years ago

People want to arm themselves to the teeth, but don't want police to do the same? Police are on the front lines, and should be protected anyway they can. We are on the internet debating whether they should be armed, all while they are on the streets catching bullets. People really need to stop being hypocrites.

Why don't we just give police officers bow and arrows and let them fight crime that way, that way everybody is happy.

United States conduct around 45,000 raids each year, only 7 percent of which have anything whatsoever to do with the hostage situations

They talk as if 7% is nothing, like 3150 hostage situations per year is not serious. Tell that to the 20,000+ officers who have lost their lives in the U.S

People need to quit allowing themselves to be brainwashed by the news media, and come up with your own opinions. No wonder the Bible refers to people as "sheep"

2 COPS KILLED IN ROBBERY LIVE CCTV FOOTAGE -...

This is ruthless world we live in, and we can not send police officers to fight crime, unprepared.

CAB DRIVER EXECUTED ON CAMERA FOR PENNIES. taxi...

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

" I knew that if I failed, I wouldn't regret that.
But I knew the one thing I might regret is not ever having tried. "

~ Jeff Bezos

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316650].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Blades

People want to arm themselves to the teeth, but don't want police to do the same? Police are on the front lines, and should be protected anyway they can. We are on the internet debating whether they should be armed, all while they are on the streets catching bullets. People really need to stop being hypocrites.

Why don't we just give police officers bow and arrows and let them fight crime that way, that way everybody is happy.

They talk as if 7% is nothing, like 3150 hostage situations per year is not serious. Tell that to the 20,000+ officers who have lost their lives in the U.S

People need to quit allowing themselves to be brainwashed by the news media, and come up with your own opinions. No wonder the Bible refers to people as "sheep"

2 COPS KILLED IN ROBBERY LIVE CCTV FOOTAGE - YouTube

This is ruthless world we live in, and you need to fight fire with fire.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i2FV...has_verified=1

NO Conservative said police shouldn't arm themselves. I earlier in this thread said they SHOULD! But they should NOT be armed like the military. It is STUPID, EXPENSIVE, DANGEROUS, and NOT NEEDED!!!!!!! And they DON'T even LET citizens do so!

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316697].message }}

Alex Blades

10 years ago

NO Conservative said police shouldn't arm themselves. I earlier in this thread said they SHOULD! But they should NOT be armed like the military. It is STUPID, EXPENSIVE, DANGEROUS, and NOT NEEDED!!!!!!! And they DON'T even LET citizens do so!

Dude that is the dumbest crap I've heard all day. We can give other countries tens of billions every year, but we can't afford to protect our own law enforcement??? There is nothing "STUPID" about saving lives dude.

Why don't you try kicking in the door of an armed madman and let me know if it is "NOT NEEDED" That's if they don't drag your ass out of there with a chest full of lead.

Not trying to be mean, but you have no business speaking for the people on the front lines. Our police officers are being out gunned, and your trying to tell me it's not needed?

NO Conservative

Leave politics out of it, it is against forum rules http://www.warriorforum.com/off-topi...forbidden.html. When you make things political or religious, it's when people start talking out their ass.

In case you didn't know, law enforcement has been using armored vehicles for decades, why is it a problem now?

[ 1 ] Thanks
2 replies

Signature

" I knew that if I failed, I wouldn't regret that.
But I knew the one thing I might regret is not ever having tried. "

~ Jeff Bezos

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316709].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Blades

People want to arm themselves to the teeth, but don't want police to do the same? Police are on the front lines, and should be protected anyway they can. We are on the internet debating whether they should be armed, all while they are on the streets catching bullets. People really need to stop being hypocrites.

Why don't we just give police officers bow and arrows and let them fight crime that way, that way everybody is happy.

They talk as if 7% is nothing, like 3150 hostage situations per year is not serious. Tell that to the 20,000+ officers who have lost their lives in the U.S

People need to quit allowing themselves to be brainwashed by the news media, and come up with your own opinions. No wonder the Bible refers to people as "sheep"
[video]

This is ruthless world we live in, and we can not send police officers to fight crime, unprepared.
[video]

What is "armed to the teeth", Alex? And, really: "...give police officers bow and arrows and let them fight crime that way,...". Engaging in a little bit of hyperbole there, aren't you?

Let's consider what "armed to the teeth" might be:

1 taser
2 charge cartriges for taser
1 pepper spray container
1 CS container (tear gas)
1 semi-automatic pistol
4 (usually) 15-round magazines for above
collapsible baton
body armor

AND, in a close-by car:

1 riot shotgun
50 assorted rounds for above
1 M16 automatic weapon
5 30-round magazines for above

As I'm sure you've surmised, the above list (with exceptions and differences, here and there) is standard issue for a policeman's duty belt and patrol car.

I think it is a very rare criminal who is ever armed as well as a police officer.

No one is saying that 3,150 hostage situations is nothing, which I'm sure you understand. I wonder how many of those 'hostage situations' really required the deployment of a SWAT team?

There is nothing hypocritical about questioning police tactics and decisions. We all understand that the job of a police officer is dangerous and stressful. However, as the saying goes, "With great power comes great responsibility." It is incumbent on police that they safeguard the lives of innocents, even in the face of danger to themselves. That's what they signed up for. That's what the responsibility is. The have a great deal of power, far more power than the average person. We expect them not to abuse it.

Unfortunately, they have been.

Originally Posted by Alex Blades

Dude that is the dumbest crap I've heard all day. We can give other countries tens of billions every year, but we can't afford to protect out own law enforcement??? There is nothing "STUPID" about saving lives dude.

Why don't you try kicking in the door of an armed madman and let me know if it is "NOT NEEDED" That's if they don't drag your ass out of there with a chest full of lead.

Not trying to be mean, but you have no business speaking for the people on the front lines. Our police officers are being out gunned, and your trying to tell me it's not needed?

Leave politics out of it, it is against forum rules. When you make things political or religious, it's when people start talking out their ass.

In case you didn't know, law enforcement has been using armored vehicles for decades, why is it a problem now?

It isn't necessarily politics or religion that causes people to "start talking out their ass", but ideology. Which you are displaying.

We are talking about the worrying lack of judgement on the part of law enforcement, not their ability to 'protect themselves', which you would understand if you would be a little less excitable.

No one is advocating sending police out with bows and arrows. What we are questioning, though, is the need for a MRAP-equipped SWAT team to serve a misdemeanor warrant for drug possession.

What we are questioning is why a little girl is lying in a medically-induced coma because a flash-bang grenade went off by her head in the course of a full-blown military assault conducted by police?

Just as worrisome (if not more) is that judges are authorizing these 'no-knock' warrants. That puts them firmly in the category of 'enablers'.

[ 3 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316772].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Blades

Dude that is the dumbest crap I've heard all day. We can give other countries tens of billions every year, but we can't afford to protect our own law enforcement??? There is nothing "STUPID" about saving lives dude.

Well, it has been ENDANGERING lives.

In case you didn't know, law enforcement has been using armored vehicles for decades, why is it a problem now?

NOT as a primary method.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316842].message }}

Alex Blades

10 years ago

That's a huge danger, all these armed right-wingers running around the US hating the government.

I suspect this is the reason this thread was started, but I have news for everyone. I don't care if you are right wing or from the left... If you don't like it, then move the hell out, nobody is forcing you to live in the U.S

Barney Fife, Meet Delta Force

People are no longer stealing a stick of gum, this isn't Mayberry dude. Modern day Opie's walk in to schools and kill dozens of innocent children.

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

" I knew that if I failed, I wouldn't regret that.
But I knew the one thing I might regret is not ever having tried. "

~ Jeff Bezos

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316735].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Blades

I suspect this is the reason this thread was started, but I have news for everyone. I don't care if you are right wing or from the left... If you don't like it, then move the hell out, nobody is forcing you to live in the U.S

People are no longer stealing a stick of gum, this isn't Mayberry dude. Modern day Opie's walk in to schools and kill dozens of innocent children.

The reason the thread was started was my wondering why the increasing militarism of police doesn't seem to be bothering many people. Your response was a good answer, because it lays bare the mindset of people who implicitly and without question trust the government and police.

You have at least 40x greater chance of being an innocent killed by a police officer than being a victim of a mass- or school-shooting.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9316792].message }}

Alex Blades

10 years ago

What is "armed to the teeth", Alex? And, really: "...give police officers bow and arrows and let them fight crime that way,...". Engaging in a little bit of hyperbole there, aren't you?

Let's consider what "armed to the teeth" might be:

1 taser
2 charge cartriges for taser
1 pepper spray container
1 CS container (tear gas)
1 semi-automatic pistol
4 (usually) 15-round magazines for above
collapsible baton
body armor

AND, in a close-by car:

1 riot shotgun
50 assorted rounds for above
1 M16 automatic weapon
5 30-round magazines for above

All that means nothing when you have an armor piercing assault rifle opening up on you. When I say "armed to the teeth" I mean us citizens. I have friends who have more than 100k invested in some of the nasty weapons you can get your hands on. It is our right to owns these guns, but who the hell are we to tell law enforcement what they need and don't need?

I have family and friends who are in the Military and law enforcement, even my daughter is study to work in law enforcement. They put their lives on the line ever single day, and the last thing they need is some keyboard politician telling them what they need and don't need.

If you are not on the front lines, you have no business telling them what they need to carry out their mission. Everyday law enforcement officers put their lives on the line, not knowing what maniac is on the other side of the door.

A total of 1,501 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty during the past 10 years, an average of one death every 58 hours or 150 per year. There were 100 law enforcement officers killed in 2013

If you think that does not warrant armored cars, then maybe you should put on a cape and go fight the criminals yourself.

The reason the thread was started was my wondering why the increasing militarism of police doesn't seem to be bothering many people

Maybe because we didn't know our law enforcement was being militarized, maybe we thought they were just upgrading their armored cars. You act like they are flying stealth bombers, and turned in their patrol cars for Abrams tanks

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

" I knew that if I failed, I wouldn't regret that.
But I knew the one thing I might regret is not ever having tried. "

~ Jeff Bezos

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9317019].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Blades

Maybe because we didn't know our law enforcement was being militarized, maybe we thought they were just upgrading their armored cars. You act like they are flying stealth bombers, and turned in their patrol cars for Abrams tanks

Only 100 are getting killed every year? If true, for the country, that is VERY little! Some go OUT OF THEIR WAY to be killed, and the job demands a higher level of risk. 100 a year, for the country, is NOTHING! IMAGINE, that is only TWO per state! I would think more than that die in crashes ALONE!!!

BTW HOW many CIVILIANS die in car crashes each year? The 32,367 , COUNTING ALL PEOPLE, traffic fatalities in 2011 were the lowest in 62 years (1949)

List of motor vehicle deaths in U.S. by year - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The conditions were WORSE in the 1920s! In places like chicago, gangsters attacked groups of businesses, and people, at random from armored cars with machine guns, among other things. Funny how the police didn't go off the deep end. They OBVIOUSLY could have.

The law hit a sweet spot for so long. Enough enforcement, laws, control to keep the criminals at bay, and not so much that anyone feared the cops would go amok, etc....

There IS supposed to be a reason why we have police and the military, Why DID YOU think that was? I'd be willing to bet that a chunck of the police couldn't even make it into the military. That is NOT really an insult. I COULDN'T, and just admitted it! It is just an observation.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9317485].message }}

Alex Blades

10 years ago

Traffic Stop Goes wrong old man with an assault...

I guess being gunned down by an assault rifle does not warrant armored vehicles???

It's easy for keyboard politicians to tell law enforcement what they need and don't need. Never mind the police officer that is out gunned, and screaming from his life.

It's easy to tell law enforcement what they need and don't need from the safety of a computer screen.

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

" I knew that if I failed, I wouldn't regret that.
But I knew the one thing I might regret is not ever having tried. "

~ Jeff Bezos

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9317102].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Blades

I guess being gunned down by an assault rifle does not warrant armored vehicles???

It's easy for keyboard politicians to tell law enforcement what they need and don't need. Never mind the police officer that is out gunned, and screaming from his life.

It's easy to tell law enforcement what they need and don't need from the safety of a computer screen.

#1, is very sad and tragic that the officer lost his life. He made mistakes, and it cost him. No one I know of, including myself, would have faulted the officer for firing on the man as soon as he removed the rifle from the truck.

#2, the rifle used was not an assault rifle, much less an "armor piercing assault rifle". This is not a dance in semantics. The officer was not out-gunned. The rounds used in his service weapon have at least the same stopping power as the rifle rounds at that distance, if not more. Have you ever fired a .40 S&W?

#3, you call me a 'keyboard politician' on the assumption that I have never been under fire. You would be mistaken.

#4, as I said above, the gist of this conversation is about the use of military MRAP vehicles and the overuse of SWAT teams and 'no-knock' warrants.

#5, a good friend of mine, Mark Stall, was killed in the line of duty as he and other officers made a high-risk traffic stop in Boise. I am no stranger to the dangers of police work.

#6, you don't seem to understand civil government. The people don't tell the police what they need. The police tell the people what they would like to have, and the reasons why, and civil government decides whether or not to provide it. I know policemen who would love to have the use of LAW rockets. Don't know of any city (yet) who has let them have them.

You posted a video showing a policeman killed in the line of duty. It was tragic, and it shouldn't have happened, but the officer knew that was one of the risks of the job.

I haven't seen your comment on the child whose body was torn apart by an over-zealous military-style police raid - looking for a man who didn't even live at the house they raided - using tactics usually reserved for armed soldiers. There is no excuse, none whatsoever, for using that level of force on a misdemeanor search warrant.

You mourn for the policeman, and that's fine. But mourn for this innocent child who may not even live, because of the militarization of police:

You go here, http://justiceforbabyboubou.com/ , look at this child laying in the hospital. Look at his crib where the police-thrown flashbang grenade went off above his chest.

You go and look at that and then come back here and explain why ordinary police should be trusted with military weapons and vehicles.

[ 2 ] Thanks
1 reply

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9317245].message }}

Alex Blades

10 years ago

Dude stop with the nonsense, rifle or not, the cop was out gunned. The parents of that poor kid put him in a known meth house. The parents admitted they know they were selling meth of there, and still decided to move there.

This thread has nothing to do with that kid, and everything to do with your paranoia. If you are paranoid, then go in the back yard and dig yourself a bunker. The truth is, the police have every right to protect themselves. We depend on them to protect us and our kids, and the least we can do make sure they have all the tools they need to get the job done, and return home to their own families.

Unless you are in the line of fire, you have no right telling them what they need and don't need. They don't come to your job and knock the broom out of your hand, and tell you how to do your job, so don't do it to them.

I don't know what bubble you've been living in, but the world is a dangerous place. I've always said, people say F the police, until they actually need them. Anyways thanks for your time, I can see you will just keep making excuses. You have a good morning

Thanks
2 replies

Signature

" I knew that if I failed, I wouldn't regret that.
But I knew the one thing I might regret is not ever having tried. "

~ Jeff Bezos

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9317480].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Blades

Dude stop with the nonsense, rifle or not, the cop was out gunned. The parents of that poor kid put him in a known meth house. The parents admitted they know they were selling meth of there, and still decided to move there.

This thread has nothing to do with that kid, and everything to do with your paranoia. If you are paranoid, then go in the back yard and dig yourself a bunker. The truth is, the police have every right to protect themselves. We depend on them to protect us and our kids, and the least we can do make sure they have all the tools they need to get the job done, and return home to their own families.

Unless you are in the line of fire, you have no right telling them what they need and don't need. They don't come to your job and knock the broom out of your hand, and tell you how to do your job, so don't do it to them.

I don't know what bubble you've been living in, but the world is a dangerous place. I've always said, people say F the police, until they actually need them. Anyways thanks for your time, I can see you will just keep making excuses. You have a good morning

If it is a meth house, then you have to be EXTRA careful. Did the US push iran too much lately? NO! And WHY? Because Iran is at a tipping point. On the ONE hand, you do NOT want them to get high quality fissionable material. On the OTHER hand, they MIGHT have it. Attacking them may backfire. That has kept ******COUNTRIES****** at bay! It is the SAME with meth houses. You don't want to just push too hard. WHY?

Meth Explosion Caught On Tape - YouTube

METH LAB EXPLODES 9-21-2010.mpg - YouTube

I bet if police acted nicer, and thought a little more, deaths would drop 20% or more. But EVERYONE risks their lives, and probably over 50% do nothing to really increase that risk.

Steve

Thanks

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9317501].message }}

SteveJohnson

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Blades

Dude stop with the nonsense, rifle or not, the cop was out gunned. The parents of that poor kid put him in a known meth house. The parents admitted they know they were selling meth of there, and still decided to move there.

This thread has nothing to do with that kid, and everything to do with your paranoia. If you are paranoid, then go in the back yard and dig yourself a bunker. The truth is, the police have every right to protect themselves. We depend on them to protect us and our kids, and the least we can do make sure they have all the tools they need to get the job done, and return home to their own families.

Unless you are in the line of fire, you have no right telling them what they need and don't need. They don't come to your job and knock the broom out of your hand, and tell you how to do your job, so don't do it to them.

I don't know what bubble you've been living in, but the world is a dangerous place. I've always said, people say F the police, until they actually need them. Anyways thanks for your time, I can see you will just keep making excuses. You have a good morning

Make sure to pull your head out of the sand every once in a while so you can breathe.

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

The 2nd Amendment, 1789 - The Original Homeland Security.

Gun control means never having to say, "I missed you."

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9317952].message }}

seasoned

10 years ago

Originally Posted by Alex Blades

Traffic Stop Goes wrong old man with an assault rifle kills two officers 1999 footage - YouTube

I guess being gunned down by an assault rifle does not warrant armored vehicles???

It's easy for keyboard politicians to tell law enforcement what they need and don't need. Never mind the police officer that is out gunned, and screaming from his life.

It's easy to tell law enforcement what they need and don't need from the safety of a computer screen.

WHY don't you say...... Assault, long rifled pipe, often colored black with trigger in front of gun stock with x gauge ammunition and a shoulder stock with safety on the side ambidextrous x pound pull trigger rifle? I mean you LOVE to add words like assault, so let's go even MORE crazy!

But HEY, if use of a *******RIFLE******* means they should get armored vehicles, then ALL vehicles should be armored! I have ended up in some BAD areas a few times.

Steve

Thanks
1 reply

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9317492].message }}

Steven Wagenheim 10 years ago

I can't be bothered reading all this. Just let me know when the world ends so I can pack.
- Thanks
Signature

My Soundcloud Music Channel
{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9317499].message }}

hardraysnight

10 years ago

and i always thought delta force was a porn star

Thanks
1 reply

Signature

These guys helped me with the feedback for my site

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9321683].message }}

ThomM

10 years ago

Lest there be any doubt about the new "party of the rich," there are now more Democratic millionaires in Congress than Republican ones. Washington D.C. has become like a philosopher's stone, able to transform blunt force into billions of dollars for the well-connected. No wonder D.C. is the richest area in the country, and Obama's approval is sky-high there like nowhere else.
While the rich do get expense of the poor in a socialistic economic, a free market economy (not a corporatist one) allows the rich and poor to better their standards of living together. This isn't theoretical mumo-jumbo: the president admitted that 95% of income gains under his presidency have gone to the 1%, while the lowest-wage workers have found their wages decimated in Obama's "progressive" economy revolving around centralized government "action."

The Real Party of the Rich: Democrats Have More Top Donors, Millionaires in Congress

Looks more like both parties are the party of the rich.
Top Stories - For the First Time, Half of Members of Congress are Millionaires

[ 1 ] Thanks

Signature

Life: Nature's way of keeping meat fresh
Getting old ain't for sissy's
As you are I was, as I am you will be
You can't fix stupid, but you can always out smart it.

{{ DiscussionBoard.errors[9321734].message }}

Barney Fife, Meet Delta Force

Trending Topics

A healthy fascination for Hollywood...

How did you turn it all around?

Any thoughts on golf's latest phenom...Scottie Scheffler??

What's the Best IM-Related Skill to Learn Today That Can Help in the Future?

best high quality crypto traffic.