Quote:Huh I'll look into it first I've heard of it
As your legal counsel, I'd advise you to not waste your time.
I read that link... he backed Jerry Brown for an office, appears not to be the run for governor...
How one can take that and extrapolate out that he's paid by "The Left" to be a provocateur is some calculus that even Newton would have a hard time deciphering.
Quote:As your legal counsel, I'd advise you to not waste your time.
I read that link... he backed Jerry Brown for an office, appears not to be the run for governor...
How one can take that and extrapolate out that he's paid by "The Left" to be a provocateur is some calculus that even Newton would have a hard time deciphering.
Yea he's based out of San Fran they don't really run conservatives or libertarians lol hell there's a chance the democrat was less of a socialist then the republican, California is a strange place.
Quote:As your legal counsel, I'd advise you to not waste your time.
I read that link... he backed Jerry Brown for an office, appears not to be the run for governor...
How one can take that and extrapolate out that he's paid by "The Left" to be a provocateur is some calculus that even Newton would have a hard time deciphering.
As I said, it's a Freeper link and the best I could do on a 10 year old story. I remember Savage on the air talking about it when he got outed and his response was basically what Eric said, "It's San Francisco, I didn't really have an alternative." But IIRC, the Moonbeam campaign wasn't the only one he contributed to, there were others and they were all Democrats. That's what Mark Levin went off on him about. Then he quit donating to political campaigns and his show went over the top with the right wing rhetoric, almost like he was trying to prove himself to his audience. He used to be the mid-evening show on WOKV (8 to 11?) and that's when I quit listening to him at all.
Quote:Disagree police don't need tanks, launchers, and automatic rifles. honestly if the need rises for a tank on us soil that's the army's job not the police.
Launchers are simply converted tear-gas launchers. These are very often used during riots but also when murderers, kidnappers, and the like are barricaded inside a home.
It isn't just tanks. It includes mine-resistant vehicles and I don't imagine that I need to explain the problems police may have if they don't have something like that.
All weapons are removed from any vehicle taken from the Federal government.
Also, the departments are required to maintain the equipment, and if the Feds need it (I.E. WWIII), they can come back and get it. They wont need to build a new one. A lot of rifles are simple conversions into fully automatic. The public can do that too. Very, very few automatic rifles are given to the local departments. Rifles, plate carriers, gas masks, etc. are all practical equipment that are frequently used. Besides you just being uncomfortable with it, what legitimate reason do you have to disagree with it?
Quote:Disagree police don't need tanks, launchers, and automatic rifles. honestly if the need rises for a tank on us soil that's the army's job not the police.
Can you give an example and show a source where police departments are given tanks?
Ever think about the idea that "launchers" might be useful to launch tear gas in the case of crowd control or someone barricaded somewhere?
I could be wrong, but I don't believe many, if any police departments use automatic weapons. Perhaps maybe a SWAT team, but that would be an extreme and unusual case.
Besides, while we'd like to believe the military would handle it, who do you think would be the front-line if we were invaded? 900,000 (approx.) Officers in the US VS. 2,000,000 (approx.) Service members including reserve. Many of the officers are prior military, too. If we're playing hypotheticals, that's more likely to happen than rising up against the government. And, if a terrorist cell is activated then the police are more likely to respond.
This "article" is pretty stupid.
Here is a quote from the article.
Quote:
Banned items include "tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, and large-caliber firearms."
I wonder how many police departments have requested "tracked armored vehicles" recently?
How many have requested "weaponized aircraft and vehicles"?
What about bayonets?
What about grenade launchers?
Finally, what constitutes a "large caliber firearm" according to this?
This is nothing more than a propaganda piece from the regime to make it appear that they are getting tougher on the "mean police".
Quote:This "article" is pretty stupid.
Here is a quote from the article.
I wonder how many police departments have requested "tracked armored vehicles" recently?
How many have requested "weaponized aircraft and vehicles"?
What about bayonets?
What about grenade launchers?
Finally, what constitutes a "large caliber firearm" according to this?
This is nothing more than a propaganda piece from the regime to make it appear that they are getting tougher on the "mean police".
Propaganda? Nobody at all has decried the militarization of the police. None of them have equipment like this. It's obviously just propaganda.
Quote:Propaganda? Nobody at all has decried the militarization of the police. None of them have equipment like this. It's obviously just propaganda.
He has a point. While I disagree with some of the banned items, most police departments don't use many of the items on the list. Bayonets? This whole thing is to appease the masses and to appear as though the President's administration is taking steps to fix a "problem".
Quote:Propaganda? Nobody at all has decried the militarization of the police. None of them have equipment like this. It's obviously just propaganda.
The regime has to come up with a way for The President to have some kind of legacy. This will be marked as "an accomplishment".
Quote:He has a point. While I disagree with some of the banned items, most police departments don't use many of the items on the list. Bayonets? This whole thing is to appease the masses and to appear as though the President's administration is taking steps to fix a "problem".
Militarization is a problem to a whole lot of people.
I don't see a problem with removing items from a program previously allowed under the program. What, exactly is wrong with that?
Quote:The regime has to come up with a way for The President to have some kind of legacy. This will be marked as "an accomplishment".
You missed the entire point. A whole lot of Americans have a problem with the very real militarization of the police. This order does something. You think it's already to much. I would wager are much larger percentage across the aisles thinks it's not nearly enough.
It's only a few items so you think it's propaganda. What would your reaction have been if it was even more items?
Quote:He has a point. While I disagree with some of the banned items, most police departments don't use many of the items on the list. Bayonets? This whole thing is to appease the masses and to appear as though the President's administration is taking steps to fix a "problem".
I disagree with pretty much all of the "banned" items when it comes to arming a police force.
"Most police departments don't use many of the items on the ban list"? I challenge anyone to find one link to a credible source that shows a police department using any of the items on the "banned" list.
Propaganda is used to in your words "appease the masses and appear as though the regime is taking steps to 'fix a problem'."
Quote:You missed the entire point. A whole lot of Americans have a problem with the very real militarization of the police. This order does something. You think it's already to much. I would wager are much larger percentage across the aisles thinks it's not nearly enough.
It's only a few items so you think it's propaganda. What would your reaction have been if it was even more items?
I think that it is you who is missing the point. The "removed items" are not something that police departments request or use.
What do you define as the "very real militarization of the police"?
Quote:I think that it is you who is missing the point. The "removed items" are not something that police departments request or use.
What do you define as the "very real militarization of the police"?
A quick google image search shows a multitude of police labeled military style vehicles many of witch have tracks. I am sure it's all photo shopped though.
I have the same definition as others. You know exactly what I mean, you just disagree with it hence your loaded question. Here you go anyways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police
Quote:A quick google image search shows a multitude of police labeled military style vehicles many of witch have tracks. I am sure it's all photo shopped though.
I have the same definition as others. You know exactly what I mean, you just disagree with it hence your loaded question. Here you go anyways
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militarization_of_police
It wasn't a loaded question at all.
However, from your link your definition is this. "Militarization of police involves the use of military equipment and tactics by non-military law enforcement officers, including the use of armored personnel carriers, assault rifles, submachine guns, sniper rifles, SWAT teams, intelligence agency-style information gathering aimed at the public and political activists, and a more aggressive style of policing".
Let's go through each one of these with some explanation. I will note, that I am a former police officer and a military veteran, so my comments are based on actual experience.
- Regarding "military equipment and tactics". - When I served in the Sheriff's Department quite a few years ago (1986ish) we used to go train and learn tactics from the military trainers on an Air Force base using their facilities. The instructors that we had were the same ones that trained military police.
- Regarding "armored personnel carriers". - I have no problem with police being transported to an area where violence is occurring under cover. Imagine going into a riot situation. You don't want to go there in a regular police car, and you don't have the capacity to place more numbers of police officers in the area.
- "Assault Rifles" - This goes back to the definition of "assault rifle". Is it because the stock and style of grip "looks" like a military weapon? Is it because a rifle or shotgun used has a "pistol" style grip? That kind of weaponry has been used for years by many police departments. Why is it now a "problem"?
- "Submachine guns" - Show me a credible source where any law enforcement agency uses this kind of weaponry. At the very most, law enforcement uses semi-automatic rifles and/or hand guns.
- SWAT Teams - These have been in place for several years dating back to at least the 1970's or probably earlier. They are made up of officers that go through additional training (see point #1 above) to assess and combat unique threats. When I served they were called the ERT (Emergency Response Team).
- "Intelligence style of gathering information" - I left out the part regarding "the public or political activists" from your definition. Police departments don't pursue information based on politics and they don't gather data on the general public period. However, they do gather intelligence based on the area and people involved. I used to gather "intelligence" from people regarding certain gang activity in some of the neighborhoods that I patrolled.
So after all of that, please tell me why we should "de-militarize" the police.
Quote:I'm guessing you'd find Rand Paul a credible source.
http://time.com/3111474/rand-paul-ferguson-police/
I'm a bit confused and lazy. The title of the article that you linked to talks about Rand Paul, but the content seems to quote other sources and is mostly an "opinion piece" rather than a "hard news story". Perhaps I'll actually read the article later rather than skimming it.
Quote:I disagree with pretty much all of the "banned" items when it comes to arming a police force.
"Most police departments don't use many of the items on the ban list"? I challenge anyone to find one link to a credible source that shows a police department using any of the items on the "banned" list.
Propaganda is used to in your words "appease the masses and appear as though the regime is taking steps to 'fix a problem'."
I think we're on the same page with a few differences.
Quote:Militarization is a problem to a whole lot of people.
I don't see a problem with removing items from a program previously allowed under the program. What, exactly is wrong with that?
I agree that many people have a problem with it, but I disagree that it's a problem.
People don't like the way police look in helmets, heavy vests, and rifles. Those, however, are accessible to the public. As for the other things, mine-resistant vehicles have only ever been defensive measures. The other stuff aren't even used by the officers. They're used with special units for special tasks. Are you saying that they don't serve a purpose?
Quote:I'm a bit confused and lazy. The title of the article that you linked to talks about Rand Paul, but the content seems to quote other sources and is mostly an "opinion piece" rather than a "hard news story". Perhaps I'll actually read the article later rather than skimming it.
Rand Paul wrote the piece.