• 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!

Is All This Really Necessary?

Is All This Necessary?

  • Total voters
    44
So, when is our bad a$$, well regulated militia gonna step up and deal with this....
 
ChezC3 said:
Remember, just because you're paranoid doesn't mean the government isn't out to get you...

:wink2:
Click to expand...

Are you sure it is only the government and not the world? ;)
 
Possibly.

I want our police to be properly equipped to respond to potential terrorist attacks, both foreign and domestic.

This would include responding to a small group of heavily armed and trained Al Qaeda sympathizers.
But it would also include responding to militant groups such as tea party freaks, white supremacy groups, and organized thieves like Cliven Bundy and his gang.

There are a lot of groups that would like to take up arms against our people and our Government.
I do not like the idea of our local police being at the mercy of waiting for the National Guard or the Feds.

Edit: To expand on this...

I think it is hilarious to see people freaking out and losing their minds because they think the second Amendment, which covered 1 shot ball and powder weapons, gives them the right to have weapons of mass war and carnage.
But when the Police want to have the ability to counter these mass weapons of war, they do a 180 and want the police to have 1 shot ball and powder weapons.
The hypocrisy is mind boggling.

I recently heard an argument that a homeowner should be able to have fully automatic weapons with unlimited ammo because the bad guys have them.
But the same people seem to think the police should not have things to counter such weapons.
Freaking crazy.

Maybe the police should have to call homeowners to come protect them.
 
Last edited:
How many times have police gotten into situations that could only be resolved with heavy military equipment in the last decade? Compare that to the number of innocent people hurt by SWAT teams using completely excessive force for what should routine policing operations.

Right now there is a baby in a coma because apparently the SWAT team needed to perform a no-knock raid with flagbangs to capture a single guy reported doing a drug deal worth 50 dollars. The suspect they were after wasn't even in the house and no drugs were found.

I am certain that we are inevitably going to read a story on the news about how an innocent person gets run over because some wannabe rambo idiots rammed their MRAP into the wrong house while valiantly trying to arrest someone for unpaid parking tickets.
 
ChezC3 said:
Yeah, yeah, the conservatives are the one's living in fear while the dumb ass democrat in office is arming very governmental agency he can to the teeth...

:lamo



Ze Germans are coming!!! ZE GERMANS ARE COMING!!!!. :scared:

You've got a better chance of seeing that than the roving, armed, criminal posses who're ready to strike and take down poor unsuspecting police departments in Middle America at any moment. The whole thing is contrived.
Click to expand...

Po wittle tings.
 
lizzie said:
So, since you don't do anything illegal, it is okay for cops to abuse civil rights, and act like the mob when in the process of law enforcement. That is a very faulty way to think, if you value your rights in society.
Click to expand...

They're not violating my civil rights, are they violating yours?
 
X Factor said:
I kind of agree. I've been seeing a lot of anti-cop sentiment from more and more conservatives.
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely convinced that all are conservatives, some might be, but lately, those with anti government sentiments seem to get loved and are given attention by conservatives.
 
lizzie said:
It appears you missed the point.
Click to expand...

Didn't know there was one. I still have the very same rights today that I had 55 years ago. Not much has changed, except cops don't stop me and question me now for being in the wrong neighborhood, and that's a good thing, because I used to get tired of it.
 
HonestJoe said:
Isn’t that the response towards the police here? A mindless panic that having a few ex-military vehicles will magically turn the US in to some kind of militarised police state?

As I said, I was talking about in the extreme. I agree that 99% of the time, the high-end capabilities of these vehicles will be irrelevant. They’re still cheap vehicles that the police can make practical use of though, so there is no reason for it to be a negative thing. Would you rather this valuable equipment was just scrapped of left to rot in some warehouse somewhere?
Click to expand...

The response is well deserved, considering. No, I'm very mindful, very mindful when I see increased police hostility to the people, increased powers of authority being taken (not given, but taken), increased militarization of police departments which face no credible threat that you propose, the armament of government agencies which needn't be. I'm mindful of all of these things. Don't try to dismiss legitimate concerns as mindless acts of panic, I don't panic, I don't cry "ze Germans are coming ze Germans are coming". I do however take note and point out when government is overstepping its bounds.

Any and all atrocities and infringements against our freedom, of liberties we'll give our authority can be had with the justification of an "extreme" situation.

I won't bore you with the Ben Franklin quote, so I'll cut to it. I'm not willing to sacrifice my liberties for supposed security. The police have no constitutional obligation to protect me so no, I don't feel any obligation to make sure their wet dreams of being Robocop are being fulfilled.

Also, you cannot say the police will make practical use out of something that you in the breath before admit is only justified with the "what ifs" of extreme situations. That's just not, .....well,.....practical.
 
Nope, the police don't need that. That's excessive. Let the National Guard take care of things that may require a vehicle like that.
 
ChezC3 said:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/06/09/us/war-gear-flows-to-police-departments.html

Do our police have to be militarized? Is this what we want patrolling our streets?

Is all this really necessary?
Click to expand...
Yes sir, it is!!! Our LE officers have been trailing the criminals they fight in weapons technology for as long as I can remember. We need them to have the best and most effective tools available to make the idea of fighting against them so abhorrent to criminals that their motivation for committing crimes goes down substantially. If a criminal knows that taking off in a car and trying to force the LE to break off pursuit in order to protect civilians will only result in a helo taking them out with a laser targeted missile, they will be far less likely to run, since going to jail is normally more preferable to getting turned into road-kill.
 
AJiveMan said:
Hey, all they gotta do is say, come out with your hands up, and it's done.

I don't deal drugs, takes drugs, or make them, I have nothing to fear.

I have noticed lately that there must be many, many conservatives living in fear though, poor them. Must be living in hell having to look over their shoulders all the time wondering who's going to get them. :lol:
Click to expand...

So what about the people who aren't going to come with their hands up and have an armory of weapons they bought on the black market?? Do we simply send in our officers with batons and shields?? I'm a conservative and I'm not afraid of criminals. What I want is for criminals to be afraid of LE. Right now, they aren't.
 
faithful_servant said:
Yes sir, it is!!! Our LE officers have been trailing the criminals they fight in weapons technology for as long as I can remember. We need them to have the best and most effective tools available to make the idea of fighting against them so abhorrent to criminals that their motivation for committing crimes goes down substantially. If a criminal knows that taking off in a car and trying to force the LE to break off pursuit in order to protect civilians will only result in a helo taking them out with a laser targeted missile, they will be far less likely to run, since going to jail is normally more preferable to getting turned into road-kill.
Click to expand...

Back in the day the penalty for theft was the same as murder, Death. There still was thieving, there still was murder.
 
ChezC3 said:
Back in the day the penalty for theft was the same as murder, Death. There still was thieving, there still was murder.
Click to expand...

Was there the same amount of theft and murder that there would have been without those laws?

It's a sad thing to have to resort to forcing people to prove that something that didn't happen, could have happened...
 
Painter said:
I think it is hilarious to see people freaking out and losing their minds because they think the second Amendment, which covered 1 shot ball and powder weapons, gives them the right to have weapons of mass war and carnage.
But when the Police want to have the ability to counter these mass weapons of war, they do a 180 and want the police to have 1 shot ball and powder weapons.
The hypocrisy is mind boggling..
Click to expand...

There is some mind boggling hilarity going on right here.....

:lamo
 
faithful_servant said:
Was there the same amount of theft and murder that there would have been without those laws?

It's a sad thing to have to resort to forcing people to prove that something that didn't happen, could have happened...
Click to expand...

Again with the "what ifs"

The point is that this will not be a determent.

It's a sad thing to have to explain that the only reality we have is the one we're in right now. What could have happened didn't happen, and there is no changing that.
 
faithful_servant said:
So what about the people who aren't going to come with their hands up and have an armory of weapons they bought on the black market?? Do we simply send in our officers with batons and shields?? I'm a conservative and I'm not afraid of criminals. What I want is for criminals to be afraid of LE. Right now, they aren't.
Click to expand...

Without dissecting your post into parts, I really don't know where to begin,

but, I'm not in the least worried about an officer knocking on my door, because in my ghetto, it's almost a daily occurrence. I view LE as my friend, not my enemy. I don't really fear criminals either, since I hardly put myself or better half into questionable situations.

Those people should be concerned.
 
ChezC3 said:
Again with the "what ifs"

The point is that this will not be a determent.

It's a sad thing to have to explain that the only reality we have is the one we're in right now. What could have happened didn't happen, and there is no changing that.
Click to expand...

You can't prove that it won't reduce crime and neither can I. You're asking to prove that something didn't happen and that's a dishonest debate tactic. Instead of doing that, how about engaging in honest debate?? Look at the facts of what happens in most human interactions when one person has the power to enforce their will on another. If our LE has the ability to stop a criminal act using superior weapons, that reduces the possibility of that act being carried out. It does not stop it altogether, but it does reduce the number of incidences, since the basic human nature of self-preservation reinforces the idea that fighting a superior enemy means losing the fight. There people who will ignore that and fight any way, but most will not. Take an extreme example: Put four highly armed Navy Seals (with blanket permission to shoot anyone who is even rude to the clerk) in the convenience store in this country with the highest rate of armed robbery. Suddenly, the store goes from having the most robberies to the least and has a very polite clientele. Why? Because they understand that they are going to lose if they are dumb enough to try to rob the store or even call the clerk a jerk. Right now, our criminals understand that they can fight LE and win and that ENCOURAGES their criminal activity. We need to make it so that they understand that they WILL lose if they fight LE and DISCOURAGE them. This isn't a 100% cure for the problem of crime, it's a step in the right direction.
 
faithful_servant said:
You can't prove that it won't reduce crime and neither can I. You're asking to prove that something didn't happen and that's a dishonest debate tactic. Instead of doing that, how about engaging in honest debate?? Look at the facts of what happens in most human interactions when one person has the power to enforce their will on another. If our LE has the ability to stop a criminal act using superior weapons, that reduces the possibility of that act being carried out. It does not stop it altogether, but it does reduce the number of incidences, since the basic human nature of self-preservation reinforces the idea that fighting a superior enemy means losing the fight. There people who will ignore that and fight any way, but most will not. Take an extreme example: Put four highly armed Navy Seals (with blanket permission to shoot anyone who is even rude to the clerk) in the convenience store in this country with the highest rate of armed robbery. Suddenly, the store goes from having the most robberies to the least and has a very polite clientele. Why? Because they understand that they are going to lose if they are dumb enough to try to rob the store or even call the clerk a jerk. Right now, our criminals understand that they can fight LE and win and that ENCOURAGES their criminal activity. We need to make it so that they understand that they WILL lose if they fight LE and DISCOURAGE them. This isn't a 100% cure for the problem of crime, it's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

I'm not asking you to prove anything, I'm pointing out that what you suggest, historically speaking has been a failure. This has been proven.

I don't feel a draconian police state is the answer, I'm sorry, it just isn't. Further, since we want to talk about human nature, it is in our nature to acquire power, and with it abuse it, giving the police, who I'll state again have no constitutional obligation to protect any of us the means in which to further accumulate power will show and has shown that they will abuse such power. I'm not scared of "what ifs" I'm concerned with what is, and what is is a steadily moving government which has turned from a republic, to a democracy, to an authoritarian form of rule. Anything which will hamper this, which is going to happen regardless, but anything that will impede its progress I am 100% in favor of. If this means police will have to make do with Kevlar, semi-auto pistols, shotguns, and semi-automatic rifles which is the same as any crazed band of "highly armed" criminals roaming the country side ready to strike Main St. America at any given time, than so be it.
 
faithful_servant said:
You can't prove that it won't reduce crime and neither can I. You're asking to prove that something didn't happen and that's a dishonest debate tactic. Instead of doing that, how about engaging in honest debate?? Look at the facts of what happens in most human interactions when one person has the power to enforce their will on another. If our LE has the ability to stop a criminal act using superior weapons, that reduces the possibility of that act being carried out. It does not stop it altogether, but it does reduce the number of incidences, since the basic human nature of self-preservation reinforces the idea that fighting a superior enemy means losing the fight. There people who will ignore that and fight any way, but most will not. Take an extreme example: Put four highly armed Navy Seals (with blanket permission to shoot anyone who is even rude to the clerk) in the convenience store in this country with the highest rate of armed robbery. Suddenly, the store goes from having the most robberies to the least and has a very polite clientele. Why? Because they understand that they are going to lose if they are dumb enough to try to rob the store or even call the clerk a jerk. Right now, our criminals understand that they can fight LE and win and that ENCOURAGES their criminal activity. We need to make it so that they understand that they WILL lose if they fight LE and DISCOURAGE them. This isn't a 100% cure for the problem of crime, it's a step in the right direction.
Click to expand...

That's just it. Criminals do not fight and win against LE now. Look at virtually every police shoot out in the last 20 years how many of then didn't end up with either the bad guy in jail or more likely dead.
In my opinion a whole lot of this stems from a large % of cops that want to pretend they are badass military SOF shooters. There is almost no reason that cops should be in cammo uniforms or using sniper guns with more range than a 7.62. Yet almost every SWAT is decked out in multicam and tons of Depts are buying sniper weapon systems chambered in 300wm all the way up to 50cal. It is out of hand.
 
ChezC3 said:
The response is well deserved, considering. No, I'm very mindful, very mindful when I see increased police hostility to the people, increased powers of authority being taken (not given, but taken), increased militarization of police departments which face no credible threat that you propose, the armament of government agencies which needn't be. I'm mindful of all of these things. Don't try to dismiss legitimate concerns as mindless acts of panic, I don't panic, I don't cry "ze Germans are coming ze Germans are coming". I do however take note and point out when government is overstepping its bounds.
Click to expand...
Not an entirely unreasonable point in general terms. This is specifically about a heavy truck though. Cry wolf over that and nobody will take you seriously when you have real issues to complain about.

ChezC3 said:
Also, you cannot say the police will make practical use out of something that you in the breath before admit is only justified with the "what ifs" of extreme situations. That's just not, .....well,.....practical.
Click to expand...
My point was that the extreme abilities of this vehicle might be of specific use in rare situations but it's still a vehicle capable of getting people from A to B.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom