Military Police?

[Lupinus]

The idea that an uprising may actually be successful is so farfetched it actually makes me giggle a little bit when people talk about it. Please get away from ideas like this. It makes us all look like lunatics. If you want to defend your freedom do it the only way possible. Keep legislature like HR 1022 from even being considered.

Heh, I dunno. The insurgents in Iraq aren't doing to bad. Is it a war we can win? Sure. But rooting out a strong insurgency is a PITA and always has been and there are plenty of ways for said insurgency to combat a superior fighting force. As I said, look at the insurgents in Iraq. On an open battlefield they die, in gurrila warfair they don't do half bad. And thats with them being cordnated like crap and wasting resources agianst civilian targets.

Take those same insurgent numbers and materials with capable leadership and cordnation and concintrating on actual military targets and we'd be in for a lot mroe of a fight. And wars aren't won simply on the battlefield anymore either. Much of America has lost any stomache for war, and we are talking a war half a world away agianst people we have never met and would be happy to come here and kill us. How do you think thier stomache would handle it if the goverment had to invade...oh say Idaho, Montana, and some states up around there? When they had no desire to kill Americans and just wanted to be left alone? And with the scenerio above of capable leadership and resources thrown squarly agianst military targets rather then being wasted? I imagine American blood would turn the stomache a hell of a lot more then Iraqi blood.

 

[Pepper46]

Grant 48,Hoppy 590,and Powderman

Hoppy 590, and Grant 48, I appears that your focus is in the wrong direction.
Your instructors, and trainers will steer you in the right direction. We need good well trained LEO's who are capable of thinking on their feet, and reacting appropiatly. Don't let some wanna be who thinks they know it all misdirect your thoughts.

Powderman, right on, I can' tell you how may tubes of semi-chrome I've gone through.

Remember:
If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

 

[Werewolf]

Relating a tale concerning a young LEO he had had a conversation with ArmedBear told us:

It was downright scary. I had to ask myself what ELSE he would uncritically believe, if he were told, and what he'd be willing to do to his fellow citizens if he were told to.

And that people is the REAL problem with LEO's today - obedience without question to their masters in the government. They stopped serving the citizenry about 40 years ago.

Cops are agents of the government not the people.

 

[yokel]

The idea that an uprising may actually be successful is so farfetched it actually makes me giggle a little bit when people talk about it. Please get away from ideas like this. It makes us all look like lunatics. If you want to defend your freedom do it the only way possible.

Resorting to name-calling to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation really says more about yourself than anyone else.

And besides, opting for armed struggle in lieu of the repressive tyranny of a police state does not necessarily mean that one is a lunatic.

You may choose to dismiss some of us as being merely online braggadocios if you wish, however, that would be a mistake in my estimation.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

I was speaking with a police officer over the phone regarding an incident at work and asked for his name so I could put it in my contact report for internal security and he said "Officer Jones" and I asked 'what's your first name sir?'--he said it was against policy to disclose that information.

This was a West Dundee, IL cop I was trying to be helpful to---a public servant--not allowed to disclose his first name? I laughed at him--you ARE kidding right?

I could care less if the local PD gets lots of high-tech hand-me-downs and toys--it's the BS attitude from some police that really chaps my behind.
But hey--the us-and-them attitude is always re-enforced by departmental standards of social conduct as well.

My 4-year old was very upset when the news flashed video of the LAPD this past week as they openly beat people and shot them with rubber bullets.
She didn't understand why the police were hurting those people. To there credit, the Chicago PD had many more people to deal with and they didn't resort to shooting into the crowd.

 

[CombatArmsUSAF]

The insurgents in Iraq aren't doing to bad

But in Iraq we aren't utilizing a tenth of our capability because we are operating under what is probably the strictest set of rules of engagement in the history of warfare.

Resorting to name-calling to win an argument or to induce rejection or condemnation really says more about yourself than anyone else.

I am not calling anyone names. I think that sometimes people forget that whatever we post on forums such as this one is archived for anyone that wants to look for it. I have seen things that could be used against us posted time and time again. All the brady bunch have to do is put the right spin on it.

Brady Campaign Representative:

"These TERRORISTS are talking about overthrowing the government on a daily basis. That's all the more reason that we need to take their Evil Black Rifles away."

If you don't believe me, just google your user name.

 

[yokel]

I am not calling anyone names.

You did mention the word "lunatic", eh?

Irrespective of the scurrilousness exhibited by yourself and the Brady camp, it seems to me that our adversaries ought to be mindful that there is a point beyond which no further encroachment upon or canceling of our most basic, rights, freedoms, and liberties will be accepted or made.

 

[Risasi]

+1 my ass. He completely missed my point. It wasnt 'scary' factor, it was oh so now they have the same suppliers, why dont the police just become the MPs of the United States.

I wore the ACUs, so they are hardly 'scary' to me (although I prefer Woodland BDUs over them still). DMF also decided to take it further, and added in a personal insult at the end of his statement. Hardly 'High Road' and hardly '+1'

Ratzinger, I believe you are letting your emotions get the best of you here. DMF is only attacking your logic. And that being the double standard which gun owning citizens hold when it comes to police owning all the "cool toys".

So what if they own APC's? Are you somehow threatened by them? If not then why do you so vehemently oppose the use of better equipment by law enforcement? Just because it blurs the lines between police and military? If that's your argument perhaps we should also ban citizens from wearing it when not hunting. Think through your rebuttal a little bit. And no, I do not see that DMF used any kind of ad hominem attack against you. He is pointing out that the Brady campaign uses the same argument for removing guns from the hands of the citizen. Mexico has banned all military firearms and calibers. If the police can't use such equipment I don't see why the citizen should either. Would you rather the police and citizens have to resort to using .380's and .30-30 lever actions? Here's a little clue, this won't stop the bad guys. They will still get whatever they want. So, don't limit law enforcement, and don't limit the citizen either.



Yokel,

CombatArmsUSAF said;

...It makes us all look like lunatics...

Makes us look like by it's very statement means we are not, but that we have the appearance. Frankly I think your bad reaction is merely establishing Combat's argument. You have twisted his words around in your own mind to mean the exact opposite of what he actually said. He didn't call any of us lunatics. And he was only concerned about how we appear to non-gun owners. Or even worse, those who have an agenda to oppose us, and would take our own words to use against us. That is all.

I think I'm done here. Clearly there is nothing left to be said in the this thread that hasn't already been said. If either of you want to talk about it PM me. This thread should probably be locked, because all that's left to be had is the emotionally charged finger pointing argument.

 

[SSN Vet]

mixed feelings here.....

If the police have to bust up a Meth. Lab. run by some Latin gang or the Hell's Angels, I think they should have the tools they need to go in heavy and live to go home to their wives and kids.

Dealing with well financed, mercenary criminal types is somewhat of a throwback to the Al Capone in gangland days. Personally, I'm not interested in a society where organized crime has more firepower than organized law enforcement.

But when the Small Town USA P.D. switches their uniforms over to all black SWAT style, complete with bloused trousers and jump boots, I'm inclined to think its "boys and their tax payer financed toys". IMHO, these guys need to enlist and find a more appropriate outlet for their G.I. Joe fantasies. But then they'd be subject to the strict discipline of the "real" military and half the fun would be lost.

 

[30 cal slob]

1. APC's get terrible gas mileage.

2. There are low-tech LEO countermeasures readily at hand:

 

[CombatArmsUSAF]

Thank you, Risasi !!!

That is absolutely hilarious 30 Cal Slob

 

[JWarren]

I've been watching this thread with interest and tryin to determine how I feel about the subject matter and subsequent posts.

I've decided that I think we are not seeing the forrest for the trees.

I am happy that the police are given the tools that they need to perform their jobs. Knock yourself out. If you think you need one of those thingys or want to get yourself a set of BDUs, I'll really, really happy for you.

I am FAR more concerned about what they are letting police DO with those neat little toys. Namely, I am talking about No-Knock Search Warrants.

I'm getting really sick of all these "ISOLATED" incidents and I am DISGUSTED by the implications of these to our Rights.


About a month ago, I had a lengthy debate with my wife's grandfather about this issue. He is a retired police chief with 30 years in the position.

He is insistant that no-knock search warrents are needed and appropriate. He cited the need for officer safety as a reason. He completely ignored my cited cases of innocent citizens getting property damage, injured, and even killed in cases where the police can't seem to get their Mapquest right. Furthermore, he said that these things happen occassionally, but it is more important to keep the officers out of harm's way.

Incidently, he also asserted in the same conversation that Security is more important than Freedom. I think I just gave a dumbfounded stare at this comment.

I'm just going to say it here-- as I told him. Whether any officer wants to admit it or not, they completely know the risk of taking that job. If you don't like it, get another one. Period. If you can't DO that job without trampling our God-given rights, they you need figure out a new way of doing things. Period.

Our rights are not contingent to your convienience. The instant that you believe that they are, I will question your loyalty to the very premise of what the USA is founded on. I'd say that you have lost the privilege of wearing a badge.


I am not trying to bash LEOS. I know that there are a lot of good LEOs. I know a lot of them. I also know that there are a lot of bad ones. I know a number of those, too. I AM bashing policies that allow for abuses such as no-knock search warrants, phantom witnesses as credible tips, etc.


So, my side-tracking aside, let the LEOs have all the toys they want. Be worried about what they DO with those toys.

Perhaps its time to take a closer look at the laws protecting Law Enforcement from civil liability. If they want to use shakey rationale that may violate the Bill of Rights, there should be a process where SEVERE punishment is applied to remind those policy makers that our Rights existed before thier search warrant.

I just keep thinking about what the papers will say about me if I am sitting in my house watching TV and someone kicks in my front door. Obviously, I won't make it through the exchange. When someone kicks in your door, you don't wait to see a badge. I'll be dead on the floor, and the papers will make ME the villian for daring to have a firearm in my home.

A police state doesn't come from APCs or BDUs. It comes from a slow indocrination of minds and our slow erosion of the notion that we EVEN HAVE rights.


-- John

 

[Chui]

KEEP IN MIND as the local, state and Feds are 'gearing up', so to speak; our Statist Leaders plans are to totally disarm the civilian populace. With this in mind does it not change one's opinion?? Also recall that PATRIOT Acts I and II, no habeus corpus, dismembering Possee Comitatus, etc allow much more "free use" of this wonderful equipment.

I don't like the TREND.

 

[SkiLune]

I don't like the TREND.

Better oppose Giuliani then. With the Patriot Act in his hands, we will see a huge expansion of no-knock raids. He made his name as a Federal Prosecutor in NYC, and will bring that police state mentality to the WH, if he gets elected.

The Fourth Amendment is already on life support -- pushed aside by state, federal and local agencies desire to seize and forfeit assets, which stay in their budget. Rudy will kill it off entirely, IMO. The Second Amendment will be next.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

Better oppose Giuliani then. With the Patriot Act in his hands, we will see a huge expansion of no-knock raids. He made his name as a Federal Prosecutor in NYC, and will bring that police state mentality to the WH, if he gets elected.

The Fourth Amendment is already on life support -- pushed aside by state, federal and local agencies desire to seize and forfeit assets, which stay in their budget. Rudy will kill it off entirely, IMO. The Second Amendment will be next.

Well at least we have the federal law preventing him from taking firearms away in emergencies (yes I know it hasnt yet gone to each state) - even Obama voted for that.

So what if they own APC's? Are you somehow threatened by them? If not then why do you so vehemently oppose the use of better equipment by law enforcement? Just because it blurs the lines between police and military? If that's your argument perhaps we should also ban citizens from wearing it when not hunting. Think through your rebuttal a little bit. And no, I do not see that DMF used any kind of ad hominem attack against you. He is pointing out that the Brady campaign uses the same argument for removing guns from the hands of the citizen. Mexico has banned all military firearms and calibers. If the police can't use such equipment I don't see why the citizen should either. Would you rather the police and citizens have to resort to using .380's and .30-30 lever actions? Here's a little clue, this won't stop the bad guys. They will still get whatever they want. So, don't limit law enforcement, and don't limit the citizen either.

Not quite what I was getting at. Heh, too bad I wasnt an English major, I am having trouble making my point. Mexico isnt exactly known for anything good. At one time their constitution had a 2A like clause in it, not sure if it is still there.

 

[SkiLune]

Well at least we have the federal law preventing him from taking firearms away in emergencies (yes I know it hasnt yet gone to each state) - even Obama voted for that.

I'm not familar with that Federal law, but I know of various state laws that would presumably prevent a New Orleans type of seizure.

I lived in NY for quite some time (which is why I am still a novice at handguns, but getting better since being liberated), and have pretty strong opinions on Rudy. While Giuliani did appoint an excellent police commish to round up the dregs, he later had Bratton fired and appointed a Kerik, a guy with known mob connections, and whose appointment Giuliaini NOW says was a mistake. Rudy has a VERY nasty authoritarian streak, and the guy just scares the daylights out of me.

If he gets in, with a Democratic congress, he could easily get gun laws changed. We have only the Second Amendment to protect us, but he is on record as being anti 2A, despite his recent (bogus) conversion. Unlikely to overturn the second amendment, but he could regulate gunowners to death, impose impossible taxes or licensing requirements, etc. He actually called NYC's gun laws "reasonable" at some point during this campaign. LOL.

NYC's gun laws are so "reasonable" that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any law abiding citizen to get a pistol permit in NYC, and I'm not talking about carry -- just to own one for your home/apartment. Make no mistake, RUDY IS A GUN GRABBER.

He was becoming pretty unpopular in NYC as mayor after crime declined, when he started cracking down on J-walkers and gum-spitters. Police tactics became very aggressive under Rudy. Remember "Giuliani Time?" -- a line used by a criminal cop who sodomized Abner Louima.

Sorry to ramble on, but like I said I have very strong feelings about Rudy, especially when I see him lying thru his teeth on his position on 2A.

 

[ilbob]

Not quite what I was getting at. Heh, too bad I wasnt an English major, I am having trouble making my point. Mexico isnt exactly known for anything good. At one time their constitution had a 2A like clause in it, not sure if it is still there.

It still does but in practice it is essentially meaningless. Much like the many "guarantees" in the Soviet constitution.

Or like the guarantees we have that have been whittled away to almost nothing in many cases, not just 2A.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

NYC's gun laws are so "reasonable" that it is IMPOSSIBLE for any law abiding citizen to get a pistol permit in NYC, and I'm not talking about carry -- just to own one for your home/apartment. Make no mistake, RUDY IS A GUN GRABBER.

Agreed. I like a few others had forgotten about some of it, I know part of it may have been pandering to his liberal NYC voters but he is *too* authoritarian.

IMO, what New York, Chicago (and several of its burbs) and DC have is a flat out violation of the 2A. Handguns are a legit self-defense weapon, and while it might be one thing for registration (probably not a flat out violation but just one that makes me and the rest of us uncomfortable) its another thing when there is a 'permission' factor in there. I need the governments permission to defend myself? All my guns are over 60 years old, and unlikely to be used in crimes anymore (hence the existence of the C&R list) but to NYC my P38 is the same as an M9 made last year.

 

[SkiLune]

When I lived in NY, all I had for home defense was a shotgun. Couldn't get a handgun permit. An ex-Leatherneck buddy of mine who is an all American boy and literally sings in a church chior, was also denied. (This was in Suffolk County). The reason for rejection was that we could not PROVE we needed a gun.

 

[Ratzinger_p38]

The reason for rejection was that we could not PROVE we needed a gun.

The fact that you lived in NYC should have been proof enough. I cant believe at one time I had considered moving there (this before I was into guns).

 

[yokel]

CombatArmsUSAF and Risasi,

I suppose that the nuance escaped me.

If my willingness to protect and defend the Constitution through armed confrontation makes me "look like" a lunatic or terrorist in the eyes of yourselves and the anti propagandists, then so be it.

 

[ArmedBear]

Better oppose Giuliani then. With the Patriot Act in his hands, we will see a huge expansion of no-knock raids. He made his name as a Federal Prosecutor in NYC, and will bring that police state mentality to the WH, if he gets elected.

The Fourth Amendment is already on life support -- pushed aside by state, federal and local agencies desire to seize and forfeit assets, which stay in their budget. Rudy will kill it off entirely, IMO. The Second Amendment will be next.

Worst-case scenario, to me, would be an election with Giuliani and Clinton. What you said about Giuliani goes for Clinton as well.

I am FAR more concerned about what they are letting police DO with those neat little toys. Namely, I am talking about No-Knock Search Warrants.

I'm getting really sick of all these "ISOLATED" incidents and I am DISGUSTED by the implications of these to our Rights.

Bingo. JWarren is right-on, across the board.

 

[Lupinus]

But in Iraq we aren't utilizing a tenth of our capability because we are operating under what is probably the strictest set of rules of engagement in the history of warfare.

And you think the capability, half assed warefare, and rules of engagment would be loosened and made easier agianst other Americans?

 

[CombatArmsUSAF]

IF it ever comes to that, than they sure will.

 

[SkiLune]

Worst-case scenario, to me, would be an election with Giuliani and Clinton

Agreed. I always vote, but if presented with such a non-choice I would probably not waste the gasoline to drive to my polling place. There is no material difference between those two.