• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why does DHS need 2,700 MRAP's?

Lutherf

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 16, 2012
Messages
49,280
Reaction score
55,016
Location
Tucson, AZ
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
Latest Homeland Security Armored Vehicle

It looks like these are being used by DHS elements that work with local law enforcement but DAMN! Between drones, 2 billion rounds of ammo and now MRAP's it's getting more than a little uncomfortable to be in disagreement with the government on pretty much anything.
 
I'm with the government, and I'm here to _________________ you. ;)
 
Well, it's fine, because you have a right to wield guns, which is going to help you fight them.
 
Whoever thought the DHS was a good idea must have been quite the facist.

Like we didn't know this was going to go bad.
 
Whoever thought the DHS was a good idea must have been quite the facist.

Like we didn't know this was going to go bad.

I was expecting it to go bad but not this bad !!!

By the way cute pooch as avatar!:cool:
 
I was expecting it to go bad but not this bad !!!

By the way cute pooch as avatar!:cool:

He's a good boy too. He wants Chris Christie to run in 2016!!:2dance:
 
Latest Homeland Security Armored Vehicle

It looks like these are being used by DHS elements that work with local law enforcement but DAMN! Between drones, 2 billion rounds of ammo and now MRAP's it's getting more than a little uncomfortable to be in disagreement with the government on pretty much anything.

I really, really dislike people/groups who try to intimidate me. And that's what I view the accumulation of things like this as.
 
Well, it's fine, because you have a right to wield guns, which is going to help you fight them.

Pretty soon, you won't have a right to wield guns. Executive order-master Obama will disarm the public, thus rendering us defenseless.

Even if you DID have guns, small arms fire aint doin **** to that. The government has vastly more weapons technology at it's disposal.

Basically, we're ****ed.
 
I really, really dislike people/groups who try to intimidate me. And that's what I view the accumulation of things like this as.

Same. Riots and mobs trying to overthrow the government with just cause will get plowed by those vehicles. Seems a little fishy to me.
 
The government relies on us for money. Not a single soldier, cop, or politician works for free, pretty much ever. We need only stop getting paid to shut that machine down.
 
Illegal use of government forces can be countered by holding hostage families of military or DHS.
In this era of instant communications field morale would quickly crumble.
 
What makes you think Americans are not capable of employing the same guerrilla tactics that are effectively used by our enemies over seas? I'm not saying in thrilled that DHS has MRAPs but it doesn't make them invincible.
 
ows-pepper-spray-e1321736361456.jpg

University of California Davis Occupiers Meet Sargent Pepper and Officer Down Twinkles | The Last Refuge

I suspect that if the OP read "New and improved OWS crowd control device" things might be different.

“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”

Careful what you wish for....
 
Whoever thought the DHS was a good idea must have been quite the facist.

Like we didn't know this was going to go bad.
Both the Democrat and Republican Parties had just held conventions at which wine was served. About $5,500 worth of wine was consumed at one event, about $3,500 worth of wine at the other. I don't remember which side drank more. Both sides had agreed the year before, that a $500 bottle of wine was an unreasonable expense for taxpayers, and a limit had been set of $50 per bottle. So $9,000 worth of wine was 450 bottles. A bottle of wine holds 6 servings. (450 x 6 equals 2,700 servings) About 75 Congressmen were not in attendance. I'll assume the Congressmens' spouses were near them. 520 Congressmen minus 75 equals 445. X 2, equals 890. 890 people drank 2,700 servings of wine. It would take 3 hours to metabolize that much wine. The wine did not flow until about 30 minutes before the 9/11 attack, and it took about 30 minutes for the alcohol to hit their bloodstreams. Congress had formed DHS and the Patriot Act within 4 hours of the 9/11 attack. More than an hour was spent on debating and voting, so all legislation was done before anyone had time to sober up. Assuming every Congressman NOT in attendance of the parties, showed up at the meeting, then 75 of the 440 Congresmen who created DHS and the Patriot Act were sober. That's a minority vote.
 
That's only 1 armored truck per truckload of homeland security personnel. They aren't weapons, they're bulletproof vehicles. From your statement to the effect it is an infringement on your rights that government personnel who are at a high risk of getting shot, ride in bulletproof vehicles, I infer that you believe that you have a right to deny people with dangerous jobs, basic safety equipment. What article of the Bill of Rights, did you think that right was pulled from? The only thing in the Constitution that mentions anything relevant to your complaint, is the guarantee that "...the right to life ...shall not be infringed....on the basis of creed.." Which means that you do NOT, nor has any American EVER had, the right to say people at risk of getting shot, can't have bulletproof vehicles, just because you disagree with them.
 
Back
Top Bottom