The United States Of SWAT?...

[NYcarbineer]

Maybe the police just want to be as well-armed as the rightwing gangs.

 

[bucs90]

The author of the book ends his final chapter with the statement: ‘No, America today isn't a police state,’ he writes in the concluding chapter. ‘Far from it. But it would be foolish to wait until it becomes one to get concerned.’

Its a fair debate. And a good one. As a passionate supporter of law enforcement, I too have concerns when I see small college campus PD's buying military equipment and forming a "SWAT" team. ONLY police officers who are the best trained, coolest under pressure, most capable, should be on a SWAT team, and the more we water it down with more teams, the less effective they'll be, and more tragic accidents will occur.

If a small college, or tiny town, or airport or Dept or Agriculture.....ever need a real SWAT team, they can request the sheriff's dept or the next closest large city SWAT team to come to aid.

This debate MIGHT also help us see why the US military, for all its good intentions, is not really wanted in the streets of foreign countries. They, too, don't like a military force imposing regulations on them.

 

[bucs90]

Maybe the police just want to be as well-armed as the rightwing gangs.

Logic only works on a one way street, didn't ya know that?

 

[Spoonman]

exactly & one of the main reasons is the gun lobby that is being financed by the manufacturers themselves. They have ads like "upgrade now!" or "two is better than one" when this great nation (Bible Spice- speak ) is already flooded w/ millions of guns.

and membership is growing. the lobby is stronger than ever. 66,000,000 new guns sold since obama started his anti gun crusade. americans will not give up guns. americans will not tolerate the liberal attack on their rights

because you types thrive on hate & fear. Sheeple. When I lived in Japan, guns were frowned upon because it meant you couldn't fight hand-to-hand (you were weak). It still means that but certain MURICANs (clingers) think it makes them look tough.

when is the last hand to hand fight you have been involved in? when is the last time someone pulled a gun on you? you are the one who lives in fear.

 

[bucs90]

I think it requires us to go back to square 1 and look at our country and how we govern ourselves.

1) Can we admit that our society has some violent, unstable and criminal individuals who are prone to kill anyone trying to interfere with their harmful behaviors?
2) Can we admit that some of those individuals form gangs, making them even more dangerous?
3) Can we agree that because of 1 and 2, in order to govern ourselves and not have the military do domestic enforcement (like the Brits did), that we inevitably must have a group of trained, uniformed people to enforce laws that we as a society enact?
4) Is it reasonable that we would allow those people to take that task on, to be allowed to protect themselves with equipment and weapons, at least as well as those who they are trying to enforce laws upon?

If we agree on that, then I can 100% agree that we have way too many stupid laws that should NEVER have been written, much less be enforced.

 

[Spoonman]

I think it requires us to go back to square 1 and look at our country and how we govern ourselves.

1) Can we admit that our society has some violent, unstable and criminal individuals who are prone to kill anyone trying to interfere with their harmful behaviors?
2) Can we admit that some of those individuals form gangs, making them even more dangerous?
3) Can we agree that because of 1 and 2, in order to govern ourselves and not have the military do domestic enforcement (like the Brits did), that we inevitably must have a group of trained, uniformed people to enforce laws that we as a society enact?
4) Is it reasonable that we would allow those people to take that task on, to be allowed to protect themselves with equipment and weapons, at least as well as those who they are trying to enforce laws upon?

If we agree on that, then I can 100% agree that we have way too many stupid laws that should NEVER have been written, much less be enforced.

or let the constitution do what it was set up to do, let the people protect themselves. the bigger government gets the more it fails us and the more it costs us. where do you get you ideas? das Kapital?

 

[bucs90]

I think it requires us to go back to square 1 and look at our country and how we govern ourselves.

1) Can we admit that our society has some violent, unstable and criminal individuals who are prone to kill anyone trying to interfere with their harmful behaviors?
2) Can we admit that some of those individuals form gangs, making them even more dangerous?
3) Can we agree that because of 1 and 2, in order to govern ourselves and not have the military do domestic enforcement (like the Brits did), that we inevitably must have a group of trained, uniformed people to enforce laws that we as a society enact?
4) Is it reasonable that we would allow those people to take that task on, to be allowed to protect themselves with equipment and weapons, at least as well as those who they are trying to enforce laws upon?

If we agree on that, then I can 100% agree that we have way too many stupid laws that should NEVER have been written, much less be enforced.

or let the constitution do what it was set up to do, let the people protect themselves. the bigger government gets the more it fails us and the more it costs us. where do you get you ideas? das Kapital?

You can protect yourself. Buy a gun. Avoid the criminal life.

Sometimes I forget I'm on a message board, and cant expect too much in depth debate.

 

[Dot Com]

^ spoonman funny ..... NOT!!!

civilized society, google it. When you agree to live in it, you agree to let the police handle peace-keeping in 98% of instances. Don't like it? Move to Idaho or Wyoming and go off the grid.

 

[Spoonman]

I think it requires us to go back to square 1 and look at our country and how we govern ourselves.

1) Can we admit that our society has some violent, unstable and criminal individuals who are prone to kill anyone trying to interfere with their harmful behaviors?
2) Can we admit that some of those individuals form gangs, making them even more dangerous?
3) Can we agree that because of 1 and 2, in order to govern ourselves and not have the military do domestic enforcement (like the Brits did), that we inevitably must have a group of trained, uniformed people to enforce laws that we as a society enact?
4) Is it reasonable that we would allow those people to take that task on, to be allowed to protect themselves with equipment and weapons, at least as well as those who they are trying to enforce laws upon?

If we agree on that, then I can 100% agree that we have way too many stupid laws that should NEVER have been written, much less be enforced.

or let the constitution do what it was set up to do, let the people protect themselves. the bigger government gets the more it fails us and the more it costs us. where do you get you ideas? das Kapital?

You can protect yourself. Buy a gun. Avoid the criminal life.

Sometimes I forget I'm on a message board, and cant expect too much in depth debate.

its a real sad state whe nto buy the guns that work most effectively, we have to do what the criminals do, buy them illegally.

 

[Katzndogz]

The more militarized the criminals, the more militarized the police. The police don't know who is going to be reasonable and who is out of their minds hallucinating on pot.

 

[Spoonman]

^ spoonman funny ..... NOT!!!

civilized society, google it. When you agree to live in it, you agree to let the police handle peace-keeping in 98% of instances. Don't like it? Move to Idaho or Wyoming and go off the grid.

if police were handling peace keeping in 98% of the instances we wouldn't have such high crime rates now would we? This is still america, not the government controlled communists state you are trying to create. I'll live where I choose. I'll protect my rights and interests as i ma constitutionally guaranteed. I will continue to support organizations that protect my rights, as millions of others will do as well.

 

[Spoonman]

The more militarized the criminals, the more militarized the police. The police don't know who is going to be reasonable and who is out of their minds hallucinating on pot.

once liberals leagalize pot that could be anyone. because we all know there are laws against pot usage now so no one should be using it.

 

[Dot Com]

^ spoonman funny ..... NOT!!!

civilized society, google it. When you agree to live in it, you agree to let the police handle peace-keeping in 98% of instances. Don't like it? Move to Idaho or Wyoming and go off the grid.

if police were handling peace keeping in 98% of the instances we wouldn't have such high crime rates now would we? This is still america, not the government controlled communists state you are trying to create. I'll live where I choose. I'll protect my rights and interests as i ma constitutionally guaranteed. I will continue to support organizations that protect my rights, as millions of others will do as well.

you need to put a bushmaster in your avie

 

[Spoonman]

^ spoonman funny ..... NOT!!!

civilized society, google it. When you agree to live in it, you agree to let the police handle peace-keeping in 98% of instances. Don't like it? Move to Idaho or Wyoming and go off the grid.

if police were handling peace keeping in 98% of the instances we wouldn't have such high crime rates now would we? This is still america, not the government controlled communists state you are trying to create. I'll live where I choose. I'll protect my rights and interests as i ma constitutionally guaranteed. I will continue to support organizations that protect my rights, as millions of others will do as well.

you need to put a bushmaster in your avie

actually I don't own a bushmaster. I have a colt and a stag arms model

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I like the staged picture in the OP. It's pretty cool.

I don't think it's staged...

Maybe he's referring to the first guys tactical flash light. Apparently he likes to keep an eye on his flash suppressor.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

if the clingers like m15shooter, 2ndamendment, & others weren't buying all the military-style, fire sticks, maybe SWAT wouldn't need to get all that over-the-top equipment. That ever occur to you OP? BTW- I served Wonder how many of the overt clingers on this board served?

Like I said in a previous post. Almost Nobody had ARs or AKs when I was growing up in the eighties.
Now they are everywhere. I blame the State for ratcheting up the pressure and people responded accordingly.

 

[Spoonman]

if the clingers like m15shooter, 2ndamendment, & others weren't buying all the military-style, fire sticks, maybe SWAT wouldn't need to get all that over-the-top equipment. That ever occur to you OP? BTW- I served Wonder how many of the overt clingers on this board served?

Like I said in a previous post. Almost Nobody had ARs or AKs when I was growing up in the eighties.
Now they are everywhere. I blame the State for ratcheting up the pressure and people responded accordingly.

even so, the frequency they are used to kill someone is so small. a few high profile caases that have been escalated by a media frenzy gives them a bad name.

 

[bucs90]

if the clingers like m15shooter, 2ndamendment, & others weren't buying all the military-style, fire sticks, maybe SWAT wouldn't need to get all that over-the-top equipment. That ever occur to you OP? BTW- I served Wonder how many of the overt clingers on this board served?

Like I said in a previous post. Almost Nobody had ARs or AKs when I was growing up in the eighties.
Now they are everywhere. I blame the State for ratcheting up the pressure and people responded accordingly.

A history lesson for you dumbass:

UT-Austin clock tower rampage: Cops didn't have sniper rifles; Bad guy did. Lots died.
North Hollywood shootout: LAPD had pistols; 2 robbers had full auto AK's. LAPD had to go to a gun store and beg for AR15's to fight back.
LA Riots: LAPD grossly outmanned, outgunned.
That piece of shit Bill Ayers, who bombed cops. Now they have armored cars.
Pittsburgh shootout; 4 cops with pistols killed by 1 madman with an AK47
LA County ambush/house burn: Man on 2nd floor with rifle kills several cops from long distance shots
Chicago Housing Project shootings: Thugs using rifles from high rise floors to shoot at CPD patrolmen...with pistols.

That's a few of the most famous ones right off the top of my head. The 60's-80's saw lots and lots and LOTS of incidents where cops were outgunned and/or outmanned. The Hell Angels, street gangs, Mexican drug cartels. Regular ass crazy people with big guns.

The criminal element went to bigger guns first. The cops responded. The criminal element started toying with bombs and sniper rifle ambushes. So the cops went to armored cars.

Government and police are RARELY proactive. 99.9% of government action is reactive. Remember....you rapid gun nuts always say "When seconds count, the police are minutes away". Police react. And their equipment and weapons of today are a reaction of past incidents.

 

[bucs90]

if the clingers like m15shooter, 2ndamendment, & others weren't buying all the military-style, fire sticks, maybe SWAT wouldn't need to get all that over-the-top equipment. That ever occur to you OP? BTW- I served Wonder how many of the overt clingers on this board served?

Like I said in a previous post. Almost Nobody had ARs or AKs when I was growing up in the eighties.
Now they are everywhere. I blame the State for ratcheting up the pressure and people responded accordingly.

even so, the frequency they are used to kill someone is so small. a few high profile caases that have been escalated by a media frenzy gives them a bad name.

That's true. A majority of incidents where cops are shot are done with pistols. But like you said, sometimes an explosive or high powered rifle are used.

And those incidents will occur again.

The question is...WHERE? They happen in big cities, small cities, rural counties. You never know when or where one of those scary incidents will happen. Can you blame the cops for preparing just in case THEY are the ones who will face that incident?

Its no different than a gun rights advocate wanting to pack a gun in a bar or movie or anywhere else....despite the fact that the odds of ever needing it are less than 1%.

 

[bucs90]

I can absolutely agree with the horror that is a raid on the wrong house, or the unnecessary killing of a dog.

To demand that the police get ALL information on a warrant 100% correct is very reasonable. No reason other than sloppy or lazy work that a warrant is issued for the wrong house.

As for the dogs...tragic, and I'm a dog lover. In my days on patrol, I almost got bit a few times just to avoid shooting an aggressive dog. Thank God I never had to shoot one.