• 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
CLAX1911 said:
I know the law pretty well in my state (Texas) I can't work in other states so I don't see much point in knowing the law there.

I have bought all of this stuff, looking before I was a peace officer, aside froma suppressor, I did so legally. Don't blame the police because some states step all over the second amendment. That is the legislature.
Click to expand...

In many states and cities you can not. I was replying to a post where you said that citizens can buy anything LEOs have which is just not true. I was not blaming the cops for what citizens can and cannot buy.
 
Last edited:
CLAX1911 said:
You keep saying that, but the only thing you seem to mention that is different is that it was used in combat. Doesn't really matter where it's driven, it's still just a truck. Other than being armored what makes it not a truck?
Click to expand...

I also mentioned sniper systems as well. And the whole point of this topic is the militarization of our police force and this is just another example of it. If it was just the truck I doubt anyone would care. But sadly the truck is just another example.
 
braindrain said:
That is not me altering what you wrote. It is me replying to what you wrote. Its in the middle of your post so you know which part i was refering to. That is why it is in bold. Pretty standard to do that on forums.
Click to expand...
If you want to do that, you should, right after my words, type the following exactly as it appears [/QUOTE]

It's not at all standard, I pissy on five different forums and most of them will give you an infraction for doing that. I have never seen anybody do that before, but to be a smart ass.
 
braindrain said:
In many states and cities you can not. I was replying to a post where you said that citizens can buy anything LEOs have which is just not true.
Click to expand...
How would LEOs buy things if you can't legally buy them? They are governed by the same laws.
I was not blaming the cops for what citizens can and cannot buy.
Click to expand...
But you are claiming they can buy things that are illegal for non police to have, I ask how? They are governed by the same law.
 
iguanaman said:
You should have read the article...



These excess vehicles are just another unintended consequence of wasting trillions on the Iraq war. Now you think we should waste even more money by scrapping this equipment instead of repurposing it?
Click to expand...

To a certain extent, yes. The fuel requirements alone is an aspect as well as what the weight of heavy vehicles does to roads and You do need improved training for military weapons to be safe in the hands of the police. I would want to see a couple of studies before I would want to make a final decision. But yes, I have seen many cases, where it turned out to have been the wrong decision to take the unresistant deal, almost a present.
 
braindrain said:
I also mentioned sniper systems as well.
Click to expand...
So remove that. Bam, it's just a truck.

And the whole point of this topic is the militarization of our police force and this is just another example of it.
Click to expand...
What makes it militarization of our police? The fact that this truck was used in battle? So what, it's just a truck. Should we just waste them? That is a waste of the tax payer money verses fiving them to police departments and they can use them. But oh mythey look scary. That is as stupid as that assault weapon bologna.
If it was just the truck I doubt anyone would care. But sadly the truck is just another example.
Click to expand...
It is just a truck. which is why I don't understand why you care so much. Especially if it is demilitarized.

Other than the armor what makes this thing any more than a truck.
 
Hatuey said:
It says that law enforcement is considering the very real threat of some vets using their military knowledge once they get home. I've been in Mexico for a year now, and the Zetas Cartel did just that. Initially the majority of Zetas were special ops. Disenchanted with some of the things they saw, they turned their backs on the government that trained them and began using their military know how for some of the most brutal tactics.

Arturo Guzmán Decena - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



If it has already happened in Mexico, it will happen eventually in the US. Being prepared for it doesn't mean people don't support the troops. It means they are getting ready for a very real possibility.
Click to expand...

Perhaps if there wasn't other evidence of "anti-vet" (for lack of a better term) sentiment coming from the government I wouldn't have such a problem with it.
 
ChezC3 said:
Perhaps if there wasn't other evidence of other "anti-vet" (for lack of a better term) sentiment coming from the government I wouldn't have such a problem with it.
Click to expand...

What "other" anti-vet sentiments are coming from the government?
 
CLAX1911 said:
What makes it militarization of our police? .
Click to expand...

Part of it is the drummed up hullabaloo that politicians and the press have created. It is a side effect from their asinine position on firearms.



They can't have it both ways.

This

MP900184939.jpg

and this

270905police_state.jpg

are both pics of police officers

but obviously there is a different reaction one gets when looking at one versus the other.

Just like in the video, there's no difference between one semi auto and another, but the one "looks scary". It looks scary so it should be banned.

Well, people find the 2nd photo scary, they don't want that kind of presence in their community because they live in a 1st world country.

You can't go having battle dressed police running around like this is Mogadishu.

Kinda ruins that whole "Land of the Free" illusion we kid ourselves with...
 
ChezC3 said:
Part of it is the drummed up hullabaloo that politicians and the press have created. It is a side effect from their asinine position on firearms.



They can't have it both ways.

This

View attachment 67167970

and this

View attachment 67167971

are both pics of police officers

but obviously there is a different reaction one gets when looking at one versus the other.
Click to expand...
You are using the same exact argument that is used against so called "assault weapons." You are talking about looks.

Just like in the video, there's no difference between one semi auto and another, but the one "looks scary". It looks scary so it should be banned.
Click to expand...
Just like in the video, there's no difference between one officer and another, but the one "looks scary". It looks scary so it should be banned.

I used the exact argument you did, but I changed one word, and it's absolutely true.

Well, people find the 2nd photo scary, they don't want that kind of presence in their community because they live in a 1st world country.
Click to expand...
She exact argument against so called "assault weapons."

You can't go having battle dressed police running around like this is Mogadishu.
Click to expand...
what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?

Kinda ruins that whole "Land of the Free" illusion we kid ourselves with...
Click to expand...
Why because you can't dictate what the police can wear?
 
CLAX1911 said:
You are using the same exact argument that is used against so called "assault weapons." You are talking about looks.
Click to expand...

I am but there is more to it, in this for instance I used the argument on assault weapons as an example of the government having one reaction on one issue based on superficial features (guns) and using the argument against the government on that issue (guns) to justify why the militarization of our police should be allowed.

Just like in the video, there's no difference between one officer and another, but the one "looks scary". It looks scary so it should be banned.
Click to expand...

Right, good for the goose...

I used the exact argument you did, but I changed one word, and it's absolutely true.
Click to expand...

I hope so, it's the same argument. Context is different, but same argument.

She exact argument against so called "assault weapons."
Click to expand...

Right but one is an inanimate object that lacks cognisance.

what does this have to do with the price of tea in China?
Click to expand...

Everything.

Why because you can't dictate what the police can wear?
Click to expand...

If you think it is as simple as that than I don't think there is any more that I can say. The psychology behind it on both sides; police and civilian.

The level of intimidation one feels in regards to one versus the other.

Interesting that you left the last sentence of mine out which ties the entire post together providing context for you to infer meaning.
 
ChezC3 said:
I am but there is more to it, in this for instance I used the argument on assault weapons as an example of the government having one reaction on one issue based on superficial features (guns) and using the argument against the government on that issue (guns) to justify why the militarization of our police should be allowed.



Right, good for the goose...



I hope so, it's the same argument. Context is different, but same argument.



Right but one is an inanimate object that lacks cognisance.



Everything.



If you think it is as simple as that than I don't think there is any more that I can say. The psychology behind it on both sides; police and civilian.

The level of intimidation one feels in regards to one versus the other.

Interesting that you left the last sentence of mine out which ties the entire post together providing context for you to infer meaning.
Click to expand...
you are a hypocrite. There is no difference between a man in a uniform and a man in tactical gear other than appearance. It's the same difference between an "assault weapon" and a rifle.
 
CLAX1911 said:
you are a hypocrite. There is no difference between a man in a uniform and a man in tactical gear other than appearance. It's the same difference between an "assault weapon" and a rifle.
Click to expand...

No I'm not, but you take care now...:2wave:
 
CLAX1911 said:
How would LEOs buy things if you can't legally buy them? They are governed by the same laws.But you are claiming they can buy things that are illegal for non police to have, I ask how? They are governed by the same law.
Click to expand...

Are you sure you are a cop. You don't seem to know much about the law. In many places there are items that are LEO/military only. Tell you what look into getting a select fire weapon sometime and tell me what the different between buying it as a civilian or as a LEO Dept.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So remove that. Bam, it's just a truck.

What makes it militarization of our police? The fact that this truck was used in battle? So what, it's just a truck. Should we just waste them? That is a waste of the tax payer money verses fiving them to police departments and they can use them. But oh mythey look scary. That is as stupid as that assault weapon bologna.It is just a truck. which is why I don't understand why you care so much. Especially if it is demilitarized.

Other than the armor what makes this thing any more than a truck.
Click to expand...

Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp. It is not this truck that is the problem. It is the militarization of our cops. The truck is just the symptom. As I already said if it was just this truck and nothing else no one would care. But it's more than that. It's depts that have no need but spending tons of money on SWAT teams, it's cops serving no knock warrants on the wrong house because the guy who they were after was growing some pot plants. Just look at the type of things that SWAT is used for now compared to how it was handled 15 years ago.
 
braindrain said:
Are you sure you are a cop.
Click to expand...
Pretty sure.
You don't seem to know much about the law.
Click to expand...
I know the law. in Texas and since that is where I work, I know the law. pretty well.
In many places there are items that are LEO/military only.
Click to expand...
I am sorry.
Tell you what look into getting a select fire weapon sometime and tell me what the different between buying it as a civilian or as a LEO Dept.
Click to expand...
What does select fire mean?
 
CLAX1911 said:
Pretty sure.I know the law. in Texas and since that is where I work, I know the law. pretty well. I am sorry. What does select fire mean?
Click to expand...
You are the one who claimed that you can buy anything the cops have. That is just not true. Go look at places like NYC. What are there magazine capacities down to now 7 rounds. The cops are allowed to carry the standard issue mags that most pistols come with but citizens can't. Look at some of the laws in CA.
Select fire is a weapon that can fire both semi as well as auto.
 
braindrain said:
Why is this such a hard concept for you to grasp. It is not this truck that is the problem. It is the militarization of our cops.
Click to expand...
They aren't being militerized. That's just alarmist speak.
The truck is just the symptom. As I already said if it was just this truck and nothing else no one would care.
Click to expand...
The truck is just a truck. Nothing more. You care so much likely because you are an alarmist.
But it's more than that. It's depts that have no need but spending tons of money on SWAT teams, it's cops serving no knock warrants on the wrong house because the guy who they were after was growing some pot plants. Just look at the type of things that SWAT is used for now compared to how it was handled 15 years ago.
Click to expand...
Hey, I am with you, I don't believe pot should be illegal and the way we treat drug offenders here is way too harsh. I would be happy to discuss that with you, I imagine we see eye to eye on a lot of that, but it might just derail this thread.
 
braindrain said:
You are the one who claimed that you can buy anything the cops have.
Click to expand...
You can.
That is just not true. Go look at places like NYC. What are there magazine capacities down to now 7 rounds.
Click to expand...
I live in Texas for a reason.
The cops are allowed to carry the standard issue mags that most pistols come with but citizens can't. Look at some of the laws in CA.
Click to expand...
Yeah, New York and California are pretty messed up places.
Select fire is a weapon that can fire both semi as well as auto.
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah I could buy one in Texas but there is some paper work that I have to have. That is for citizens as well as police.
 
CLAX1911 said:
You can. I live in Texas for a reason. Yeah, New York and California are pretty messed up places.

Oh, yeah I could buy one in Texas but there is some paper work that I have to have. That is for citizens as well as police.
Click to expand...

We were not just talking about Texas and even then you are still wrong. It is illegal for private citizens to buy newly manufactured full auto weapons due to the firearms owners protection act of 86. That applies to all 50 states.
 
braindrain said:
We were not just talking about Texas and even then you are still wrong. It is illegal for private citizens to buy newly manufactured full auto weapons due to the firearms owners protection act of 86. That applies to all 50 states.
Click to expand...
That applies to police as well.
 
CLAX1911 said:
That applies to police as well.
Click to expand...
Wow you really don't know much about firearms laws do you. It does not apply to police depts. That is specifically spelled out in the law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom