I agree 100% with you on this, I don't think any group outside of regular law enforcement needs to be armed like that. My defense on this subject is 100% of local law enforcement.

 

So now your argument is only some OR should be allowed.

Millions and millions of warrants are served each year and guess what mistakes are made...doesn't mean the police were targeting this family for a mistake but that a mistake happened. I would be right there with you if they had intentionally and illegally targeted this family.

So stuff happens got it.

So now your argument is only some OR should be allowed.

No my argument has always been for local law enforcement...I am no more a fan of government intervention in our daily lives than you are. When I speak of Law Enforcement I am speaking about the rank and file police officer and deputy patrolling out streets, not the FDA task force or IRS inspector that needs and AR.

So stuff happens got it.

 

Maybe we should just quit serving warrants and let criminals just walk the streets do what every they want. Let's just tell the police to stand down and go home, because something bad or unfortunate may happen during the course of doing their jobs.

 

Instead of being just 12 hours a year like in the movie we could live out "The Purge" 24/7 365,every man for themselves, we don't need no stinking police.

 

 

Seriously would you be happier if all law enforcement was removed from our streets?

What weapon do they have that you as a regular citizens can't legally own?

 

I don't know. It's not the point. You are acting as if we should give them the same tools as we would a counter-terrorism unit to make their jobs safer and easier.

 

But for starters, I would be against this: Concord Stops Its Police Chief From Buying a Ridiculous Military Vehicle - Mike Riggs - The Atlantic Cities

 

I used to live in Concord for a short while. Glad to see they're stopping this. The military guy isn't some kook and is probably upset he spends his time fighting in the middle east and comes back realizing "oh wow. I was supposed to be fighting for our liberties, but I come back and our police chiefs are trying to patrol Concord like I patrolled Iraq?" Yeah, probably a little upset.

I don't know. It's not the point. You are acting as if we should give them the same tools as we would a counter-terrorism unit to make their jobs safer and easier.

Do you remember the 72 Munich Olympics? That is what happens when you have a police force ill equipped to deal with violence on a higher level. What if the Boston Bombers had taken refuge in a building with hostages, if the police were no armed as they currently are who would send in to deal with them (Remember it is illegal for the military to carry on operations on US Soil). How about the North Hollywood shoot out where police only had pistols and bad guys had body armor and machine guns, police had to go to a sporting goods store and borrow rifles to stop them. Since then departments have started giving semi auto rifles to patrol officers, what's wrong with that?

But for starters, I would be against this: Concord Stops Its Police Chief From Buying a Ridiculous Military Vehicle - Mike Riggs - The Atlantic Cities

 

I used to live in Concord for a short while. Glad to see they're stopping this. The military guy isn't some kook and is probably upset spends his time fighting in the middle east and comes back realizing "oh wow. I was supposed to be fighting for our liberties, but I come back and our police chiefs are trying to patrol Concord like I patrolled Iraq?" Yeah, probably a little upset.

These are the same vehicle that were brought in to protect officers from bomb throwing terrorist in Boston. These types of vehicles in most cases are rarely used and when they are used in most cases it is to retrieve a wounded person/officer that is still in the line of fire in a safe manner.

I agree 100% with you on this, I don't think any group outside of regular law enforcement needs to be armed like that. My defense on this subject is 100% of local law enforcement.

 

But they're only acting as a security force protecting those that need to serve warrants. These are law enforcement agencies. One ensures the enforcement of taxes, the other enforce the law on food, dietary, tobacco, sperm donations, over-the counter drugs regulations.

Do you remember the 72 Munich Olympics? That is what happens when you have a police force ill equipped to deal with violence on a higher level. What if the Boston Bombers had taken refuge in a building with hostages, if the police were no armed as they currently are who would send in to deal with them (Remember it is illegal for the military to carry on operations on US Soil). How about the North Hollywood shoot out where police only had pistols and bad guys had body armor and machine guns, police had to go to a sporting goods store and borrow rifles to stop them. Since then departments have started giving semi auto rifles to patrol officers, what's wrong with that?

 

These are the same vehicle that were brought in to protect officers from bomb throwing terrorist in Boston. These types of vehicles in most cases are rarely used and when they are used in most cases it is to retrieve a wounded person/officer that is still in the line of fire in a safe manner.

 

I was born in '91. So no I don't remember. But I've read about it. As long as the citizens can have semi auto rifles in LA, I'm fine with the police having them.

 

I don't care if they have some of those vehicles. But they shouldn't be patrolling in them, just like you shouldn't be patrolling in full SWAT gear.

 

Were you supportive of the way Boston police put the city under martial law?

When you have nothing to say mock. These are legitimate concerns. I'm tired of the argument of the police can do no wrong. I find it sad someone felt the need to mock me and also a former Colonel in the Marines.

 

You've been asked the same question multiple times but have yet to provide an answer as to what weapons you're referring to.

Let's just put our military in each city to patrol. But we need to call them a different name. That way we can't say its the army or marines conducting operations on US soil. But they'd have the same tools and treat every city like a possible terrorist hot-spot.

I was born in '91. So no I don't remember. But I've read about it. As long as the citizens can have semi auto rifles in LA, I'm fine with the police having them.

 

I don't care if they have some of those vehicles. But they shouldn't be patrolling in them, just like you shouldn't be patrolling in full SWAT gear.

 

Were you supportive of the way Boston police put the city under martial law?

They don't, much too hot and immobile to wear "SWAT" gear 40 hours a week while patrolling. Those vehicles are for special situations and needs as well.

I know exactly what I'm talking about thanks.

 

Care to share?

Let's just put our military in each city to patrol. But we need to call them a different name. That way we can't say its the army or marines conducting operations on US soil. But they'd have the same tools and treat every city like a possible terrorist hot-spot.

 

So seriously would just be happy if law enforcement was told to stand down and go home. Or would you prefer the London model where only elite forces are even allowed to wear a gun and most patrolmen carry nothing but a baton.

I don't know. It's not the point. You are acting as if we should give them the same tools as we would a counter-terrorism unit to make their jobs safer and easier.

But for starters, I would be against this: Concord Stops Its Police Chief From Buying a Ridiculous Military Vehicle - Mike Riggs - The Atlantic Cities

 

I used to live in Concord for a short while. Glad to see they're stopping this. The military guy isn't some kook and is probably upset he spends his time fighting in the middle east and comes back realizing "oh wow. I was supposed to be fighting for our liberties, but I come back and our police chiefs are trying to patrol Concord like I patrolled Iraq?" Yeah, probably a little upset.

 

 

As myself, JD and HB have all implied, they're being armed with the same type of weapons that any law abiding citizen can legally obtain. So essentially what they're trying to do is LEVEL the playing field so that they are not put in a position that they may be out gunned by a guy that just dropped a few grand at Dick's sporting goods store. AGAIN these officers aren't regularly patrolling the streets with these weapons or gear but it is available if they need to respond to special circumstances.

 

No one is saying that the situations you've mentioned aren't concerning or that they shouldn't be scrutinized, but to try to use rare examples that aren't at all common as a means to proclaim that local law enforcement is out of control is a bit of a stretch.

As myself, JD and HB have all implied they're being armed with the same type of weapons that any law abiding citizen can legally obtain. So essentially what they're trying to do is LEVEL the playing field so that they are not put in a position that they may be out gunned by a guy that just dropped a few grand at Dick's sporting goods store. AGAIN these officers aren't regularly patrolling the streets with these weapons or gear but it is available if they need to respond to special circumstances.

 

No one is saying that the situations you've mentioned aren't concerning or that they shouldn't be scrutinized, but to try to use rare examples that aren't at all common as a means to proclaim that local law enforcement is out of control is a bit of a stretch.

Ding Ding, another winner!