Great perspective about the "militarization" of our police

[Coop45]

Yup, and it ain't the cops fault an M-16 costs $35,000. Hopefully that will change someday though.

M-16's are fun for awhile, but even with a borrowed rifle, free ammo and someone to load magazines they lose their thrill quickly.

 

[benenglish]

There would be situations where that would be the best way in. Would have to know the totality of the the circumstances.

And I can't provide those. My google-fu is weak, perhaps, or it may simply be that the first SWAT (LAPD) predates the commercial internet by nearly 3 decades (and the crack epidemic predated it by a decade or so) and the information I'm remembering just isn't out there.

Consider my cite of "possible cases of offensive mis-use" retracted since I can't back it up.

 

[Younggun]

M-16's are fun for awhile, but even with a borrowed rifle, free ammo and someone to load magazines they lose their thrill quickly.

Manufacturing costs are pretty much the same for an AR15 and an M16.

If costs are almost equal, no reason to buy an AR.


Also, considering the true intent of the second amendment M16s would be advantageous.

I've shot quite a few FA firearms both in the military and out. Not worth more than my car, but definitely worth $1500.

 

[Texan2]

And I can't provide those. My google-fu is weak, perhaps, or it may simply be that the first SWAT (LAPD) predates the commercial internet by nearly 3 decades (and the crack epidemic predated it by a decade or so) and the information I'm remembering just isn't out there.

Consider my cite of "possible cases of offensive mis-use" retracted since I can't back it up.

When i get to a computer i will post some pics of drug houses that brick up the doorways, and build incredible barriers over windows to keep police out. Then they use a secret door somewhere. Sometimes the wall is actually the weakest point. Let me find some pics, they are both sad and hilarious at the same time. These are more common in urban centers.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[M. Sage]

OK, hot shot, explain to me why? There is nothing in the Constitution that says that, nor is it a law anywhere.

... are you real?

 

[stdreb27]

OK, hot shot, explain to me why? There is nothing in the Constitution that says that, nor is it a law anywhere.

This is possibly the worst post I've ever read on this forum.

 

[rushthezeppelin]

I'm okay with the equipment used, just not okay with where it is used sometimes. Like raiding a farm with swat over raw milk distribution or an organic farm over a supposed contamination issue (which in the process of the raid becomes contaminated). Are these incidences few and fat between? Yes but it still points out a valid concern of why EVERY federal agency now has its own swat teams when many of them never deal with dangerous criminals. I understand the city with a big gang problem having them when used only on credible threats, not hippie Joe schmo who's got a few pot plants growing in his basement for medical issues.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD

 

[Byrd666]

Some interesting comments.

 

[benenglish]

When i get to a computer i will post some pics of drug houses that brick up the doorways, and ...

I've been in very few drug houses during my life. (More than I'd like, but still only a few.) Thus, while I've seen some of this stuff up close I certainly don't know all the tricks. Pictures would be welcome.

 

[Texan2]

I've been in very few drug houses during my life. (More than I'd like, but still only a few.) Thus, while I've seen some of this stuff up close I certainly don't know all the tricks. Pictures would be welcome.

Will do. Easier for me when at a laptop.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

 

[majormadmax]

... are you real?

Very real, and I have yet to hear a rational, compelling argument from anyone.

And I expect to hear a logical discussion, not some harebrained conspiracy theories.

I'm waiting...

 

[majormadmax]

This is possibly the worst post I've ever read on this forum.

Your response is about as useless as I've heard. Step up and provide some reasoning...

 

[Younggun]

They are talking about the Second amendment. It was intended to insure that the people would be able to arm themselves as well as any government bodies.

Although we do have the ability to own whatever LEA can it has been made prohibitively expensive which, IMO, is an infringement.


But to your question and original statement.

The 2A says the the citizens should be able to be as well seems as the police or military. If you say it a different way it would be "the police and military should not be more armed than the people.

The answer is not to disarm the police force, it is to remove the BS infringements on the 2A.


Hope that's not too hair brained for ya. But I believe that's where they were coming from also.

 

[majormadmax]

But to your question and original statement.

The 2A says the the citizens should be able to be as well seems as the police or military. If you say it a different way it would be "the police and military should not be more armed than the people.

The answer is not to disarm the police force, it is to remove the BS infringements on the 2A.

Hope that's not too hair brained for ya. But I believe that's where they were coming from also.

Sorry, but I can't agree with your interpretation of the 2A. Nowhere does it limit the level the government can be armed...

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You even said it yourself, "It was intended to insure that the people would be able to arm themselves as well as any government bodies."

And, as you also note, that is possible. The cost is of no concern, the opportunity still exists therefore no infringement exists.

But I agree that there should be no restrictions on the possession of firearms by civilians. Still, there will always be some, as there are with the First Amendment.

 

[Younggun]

Sorry, but I can't agree with your interpretation of the 2A. Nowhere does it limit the level the government can be armed...

I never said it did. Read my post again and you will see what I'm saying... Maybe.

If there can be no limits on what civilians can own, the the gov can not be more armed than the people.


As to the 1A/2A comparison. I have plenty to say on those regulations and what that regulation applies to, but I don't want to try to say it on a Brocken phone.

Suffice it to say that those regulations only apply to things that cause harm to another person. Simply owning a gun does not harm another person and therefore should not be regulated.

Be don't ban the word "fire" because someone could yell it on a theatre.

 

[majormadmax]

I never said it did. Read my post again and you will see what I'm saying... Maybe.

If there can be no limits on what civilians can own, the the gov can not be more armed than the people.

OK, but in the context of this discussion, some are still saying the 2A can be an argument for limiting the capabilities/weaponry of the police?

I still don't buy it, nor have I heard a compelling argument from those against it...

 

[Younggun]

OK, but in the context of this discussion, some are still saying the 2A can be an argument for limiting the capabilities/weaponry of the police?

I still don't buy it, nor have I heard a compelling argument from those against it...

In that case we agree. The 2A does not limit what anyone can have, it does the opposite.

I don't think we are really in any kind of disagreement on this subject, and I dot believe the majority of those here disagree with you either.


Just an argument over how to say something with the same idea being communicated.

 

[TheDan]

OK, but in the context of this discussion, some are still saying the 2A can be an argument for limiting the capabilities/weaponry of the police?

No, you have it backwards... "hot shot" was lamenting the fact that civilians are restricted more than law enforcement. That double standard shouldn't exist. Newly manufactured select fire guns for everyone!

 

[Greg_TX]

IIRC, when LAPD got their first APC some numbnuts got the inspiration to put a giant steel pole on the front, tipped with a large steel plate. They used it as a battering ram to enter crack houses. Again going just from memory, they managed to screw up a few times and knock down whole walls and partially collapse buildings, causing a number of unnecessary civilian casualties.

I'll do some googling and see if I can come up with any relevant links. Who knows? Maybe I'm remembering some nonsense out of Sheriff Joe A's jurisdiction.

Is this what you were looking for?
ACLU Asks Court to Bar LAPD's Battering Ram - Los Angeles Times

 

[stdreb27]

Your response is about as useless as I've heard. Step up and provide some reasoning...

I'm sorry you think so.
I would think this logic was so simple, that it wouldn't need to be said unless your some wacko liberal piers Morgan type. But as you wish.

The constitution has the role of defining the limitations placed on government. The founders made an important distinction realizing the true source of tyranny wasn't the people, it was the government.

So they laid out the framework in which the government could operate.
As part of that framework, they realized it could be subverted if the general public did not have free access to information, and equally important, means in which to force a rogue government to stop its extra-constitutional activities.

So while it may not say, that the government can't be better armed than the citizenry. Basic logic would dictate that the second amendment is practically useless if the government is better armed than the citizenry.