Local Law Enforcement Using Military Equipment Questioned

[Bear44]

I'll quote from the article. these are my concerns as well.




Again, it is my right to question the actions of government and voice my opinion.

Somehow these arguments and concerns sound very familiar.

"I do not understand why civilians should be able to own weapons capable of firing scores of bullets in rapid fire. The primary reason for firearm ownership, the reason why the right of gun ownership is absolutely essential, is self-defense. How does self-defense require a weapon-such as the weapon used by the Newtown mass killer-with a magazine containing thirty or fifty bullets?

By the way, just as I was writing the above, I finally understood the meaning of the imprecise and much maligned phrase “assault weapon.” They are called assault weapons because they are weapons designed to kill the maximum number of people. They are not weapons designed for self defense."

This is from "View From the Right".

 

[wozbean]

I'm done with you.

 

[Bear44]

Guys, how can we argue a case for civilian ownership of weapons when we say that law enforcement's ownership of weapons should be limited beyond ours? That's just a non starter.

 

[Ken Ford]

and that was one of the prime scenarios that anti-gun activists would cite for gun controlwhat about when the pigs out gun the citizen (ruby ridge?)

Hummm,That kinda proves my point. Local LEOs were not responsible for Ruby ridge.

 

[KenM]

[QUOTEiswozbean;1714181]I think only SWAT should have an SUV with tracks. I have no issue with officers having select fire or full auto m16's. Or high cap mags. grenade launchers ? For launching tear gas ? if you need that call SWAT. Drones? yadda yadda yadda.

I think the general dispute is over the PARAMILITARIZATION of general law enforcement. I think there needs to be a clear line between beat-cops and SWAT.[/QUOTE]

Street cops do not need tear gas or gernade launchers to do their duties...Nor do they need APCS. They certainly do not need full auto weapons. I personally see no need in full auto in tactical situations. Full auto has no real use other than to lay down cover fire or spray and pray in close range situations. Throwing that much lead downrange that fast is not going to end up well. In war situations it becomes a different thing. In policing single well aimed shots keep collaterial damage to a minimum. That requires thinking on where to position officers to maximize containment.It can be done.

I have shot an MP5 and an M16 our department has. Lots of fun on the range. Not practical on the street. I will take my personalized AR into a situation over a full auto anyday.

 

[KenM]

Hummm,That kinda proves my point. Local LEOs were not responsible for Ruby ridge.

Exactly...Highly trained ATF and FBI did that deed. I realize some local cops might take up arms against the citizenry. Most won't.
I personally know of none that would do so.

 

[GSP454]

Law Enforcement......Love us when you need us, hate us when you don't.....same old story.

 

[Bear44]

Law Enforcement......Love us when you need us, hate us when you don't.....same old story.

I think a lot of people here just have bad issues with authority. LOL! They think they are anarchists and have clearly never seen real anarchy.

 

[chucklenut]

First, I'm not a cop and have never been one.
Second, the weapons and equipment we are talking about were given to LE as military surplus, so no cost.
Third, a hater will justify their opinions no matter what and you sure sound like you hate cops.

i dont hate cops, i just view them like any other government worker

 

[chucklenut]

Hummm,That kinda proves my point. Local LEOs were not responsible for Ruby ridge.

nope, macho assholes with military surplus equipment

regular cops dont normally (and shouldnt) have stupid amounts of firepower or equipment