Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/19/2017 7:27:10 PM
Posted: 12/4/2002 10:57:01 PM EDT
A friend of my family, a local LEO stopped by today to dump off some .223 brass that he'd collected for me, while he was making his rounds. Now I'm not sure why some cops go out with two officers in the car, and others just one, but today Mike had a partner along, and in the trunk there was Mike's MP5 and his partner's CAR-15. Both of them fully functional automatic weapons...and it got me to thinking...

Why would a cop in anywhere outside of LA or New York (for example) need a machinegun?

Short barreled rifles and shotguns? Sure, in SWAT situations they're probably worth their weight in gold. Auto-loaders? Sure thing, the cops at the N-H Shootout sure appriciated those ARs when they got them, but I've always been taught that fully-automatic fire is a tool to be used only in sustained-contact combat when TS REALY hits TF. I mean, I could MAY BE understand a lone cop, or two cops going into South Centeral or some other ghetto, wanting a Mp5K or similar weapon in case they had to hold out for backup against superior numbers, but why does it seem every PD across the nation has a SWAT team with the Hans Gruber's arsenal from "Die Hard"?

Name me one situation where between five to eight automatic-weapon weilding cops, backed up by fifteen or twenty shotguns and glocks and a marksman, need the ability to dump 30 rounds of 9mm or .223 in short order?

Sure we have gangs, and sure we have shootings in my neck of the woods, but even in the outlandishly unliky situation that a perp has an M60 and a few thousand rounds here, why does John Law need to keep up a rate of fire with the bad guys?

In my training in the Army so far, the only situation that I've ever been aware of that warrents that selector to the burst function, is when you've got a mob of angry armed Somalis chasing you and you need to spray their ranks to beat a hasty retreat.

Even then the semi-auto function aught to do just fine with proper SAW and LMG or GPMG coverage.

So please, hometown PD guys with the Mp5s and the full-auto ARs in the boot: What warrents you getting to have them and us not? What sort of sustained firefight situation do you know about that we dont are you going to find yourself in? Even in North Hollywood you didnt need volume, you needed a few rounds with accuracy and temper...

I think its time we bring gun-control to the LEOs too...
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 11:18:30 PM EDT
Well the AR's never made it to the actual shooting in N. Hollywood.

Also few places have 35,000 or 9,000 cops. Do those officers have more or less of a need for auto weapons than a person that work for a 12 person dept just outside of Chicago?

Every State has REAL criminals. The difference is in VT if a LEO calls for help it will be a long time before a 2nd officer gets there.

I don't know what is going on in WA, but MG's, in AR or MP-5 are just a minor bump up in price over semi-, weapons.

I can't think of any dept in this State that issues FA to patrol officers. I work for a 400+ person dept. We have 2 M-16's, 3 MP-5's, and 2 Thompsons (IIRC). The reason they got the MP-5's/M-16's, they are post 86 MG's, and were traded for a 1920's Thompson.

Most depts scrimp to get equipment. M-16's were recently available from the DoD for redistribution to other govt. entities. The vast majority were reconfigured to semi before being released. I know of a dept that got an M-14 from Unle Sam. That's right the auto feature was nuetered.

I'll tell you what I'll report back here when I am ALLOWED to carry any dept. long gun other than a 30 year old non-police model Rem-870.

LE gunfights are often sudden, quick, and at fist fight range. In other words if you didn't have equipment in your hand prior to the shooting, it probably won't get used.

Look at the FBI Miami shooting. Those guys had multiple full auto weapons (the FBI), too bad the were back at HQ in the vault. I Wonder if that would have been the worst shoot out in FBI history if they had 1 MP-5 with them.
Link Posted: 12/4/2002 11:51:25 PM EDT
Seems every podunk police dept that has a cheif and a patrolman has a SWAT (squat) team. Look at the pics of Torrance motorbike officers with MP5's strapped to the back of the patrol bike.

Look at all the streetbeat cops that have M16's and MP's in the trunk with little or no training. All the Public Safety guys in AZ that have full auto guns. I hate it because I cannot even remotely afford one now. Why? Because some assinine anti-gun senator from Jersey decided to slip in a gun ban proposal in a gun owner's protection law at the last minute, in the evening. How stupid is that? The SOB died already and I really hope he tasted his own blood before checking out.

What we are seeing now is small, local militarized police forces going against the citizens of this country. Doubt me? Look to the last no knock warrant fiasco that beat the door down on the wrong house after two days of recon, then went and arrested the guy at the right house with no incident.

Just look at FN marketing the M249 belt fed to police agencies. What police officer needs a SAW?

It is not getting any better out there and we've lost the ability to ever get new machine guns ever again. Hell, we're trying to keep our semi autos from being banned completely.
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 12:01:57 AM EDT

All the Public Safety guys in AZ that have full auto guns.

Hold on there... What Public Safety Officers? If you mean Highway Patrol, then you are in error. On semi-autos are issued. They are DoD surplus M-16s that our armory converted to semi-auto only. I have my own, and only semi auto is authorized. The only guys that have full auto are the SOU guys. (SWAT)



What police officer needs a SAW?


None, in my opinion. When in the heck are you gonna need suppression fire. I hope not in my lifetime. It will be time to retire on that day.
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 12:12:35 AM EDT
So rtech you are really pissed just because you can't afford one, is that it.

Unless you are progun for everyone including cops then you are antigun.

If the Red Dawn scenerio were to happen just who do you think will be there with weapons?

We need to have gun like these in the communities since you won't pony up the money we need to turn to local PD and guard units.

And sometimes it's not about need it's about want.

Full auto guns cost PD the same as semi auto, so since the moneys the same why not opt for the added feature?
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 1:02:14 AM EDT
95% of the time it's probably so they can have fun at the range on your dime. Plus the "look what we can get that all the other civilians can't" factor.
Face it, if you're in a position to get new equipment, and it'll cost the same for semi auto only or selective fire, whatcha gonna do? I'd go rock n roll every time myself.
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 1:23:57 AM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
So rtech you are really pissed just because you can't afford one, is that it.

Unless you are progun for everyone including cops then you are antigun.

If the Red Dawn scenerio were to happen just who do you think will be there with weapons?

We need to have gun like these in the communities since you won't pony up the money we need to turn to local PD and guard units.

And sometimes it's not about need it's about want.



Full auto guns cost PD the same as semi auto, so since the moneys the same why not opt for the added feature?




Don't give me that antigun crap. I've been a shooter for most of my 40 years. Most of the time an active NRA member.

If the "Red Dawn" scenerio shows up, I will find the nearest combatant and will "own" that M16 or AK. I have zero doubt in my mind about that.

BTW, anyone with a little insight into small arms operation can make an AR into an M16 fairly easy. It's just a hacksaw blade away.... Why do you think they call it a "disconnector." If it comes down to fighting an enemy force, a felony would be the least of my worries.

I am very upset at the loss of the new manufacture of new machineguns by the civilian population that was a right before 1986, just as you should be. If you are not upset about it, maybe you are an anti-gun person yourself.

I am also upset that powers used to be delegated to the government by the people, not the other way around. You should be too.
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 1:26:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2002 1:34:21 AM EDT by rtech]

Originally Posted By aztrooper:

All the Public Safety guys in AZ that have full auto guns.

Hold on there... What Public Safety Officers? If you mean Highway Patrol, then you are in error. On semi-autos are issued. They are DoD surplus M-16s that our armory converted to semi-auto only. I have my own, and only semi auto is authorized. The only guys that have full auto are the SOU guys. (SWAT)


What police officer needs a SAW?



DPS does indeed have full auto firearms. I've heard some are still missing or stolen at this time. Is this true? One of the local channels broke it the other day. Or, are they lying?


I do know that some have M16's in the trunk, I've talked with some of the guys. If they were former DoD semi conversions, he seemed to indicate they weren't converted semi's. He could have been trying to impress me. I don't know.

I know a Mesa PD guy who pulled his full auto MP out for a costume party once and went as an army guy. I thought that was way wrong.

So, when I said "all" I was wrong. I should have said "some".
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 2:34:07 AM EDT
I'm not upset that they have them. I'm upset that these guys who see the inside of a range once a month for fifty rounds get to pack them around while rolling junkies and writing traffic tickets. Its abuse of a good firearm plain and simple. For all most cops are going to use them, I'll give him my SAR2 in trade for his lead hose, and it'll probably serve him just as well.

I'm pissed that these guys who have less training than me on these weapons, and in a lot of cases are less trustworthy (record wise) are given the keys to the F*ing kingdom on guns when I have to be careful about what kind of F*ing stock I put on my AR15.

Furthermore I'm pissed that a lot of these Meter-maid-Rambos are the same cops that are anti-gun and go off on tirades about why private citizens shouldnt be allowed to own anything more than a "Ma & Pa" SxS. I know there are a lot of good cops out there, and I know a lot of times the environment fosters the attitude, but there are a HELL of a lot of LEOs in the news lately that need to be put in their place as public servants, and be reminded that they are not some DeltaforcecommandomutherF*er who gets to lord over us like serfs.

When I was 19, just coming back from a ROTC training camp, I was walking over to a friends house with an unloaded antique rifle (as we live in an unincorporated part of the county, this is 100% legal). Some Martha Stewart freaked and called the cops. I was used to living in a small college town, and giving the officers a friendly wave with my SKS in hunting guise over one shoulder, and a bunch of rabbits (or an empty ruck depending on the time) over my shoulder. So the first cop that comes across me freaks too and draws on me first thing he sees me, without warning, and puts me on the ground like some sort of G*D* meth dealer. An hour later some jackass from the local paper takes my picture and I'm on the front page the next morning looking like the last escapee from the state pen.

I swear to GOD if that ever happens again they can shoot me and go to hell for it before I give them the satisfaction of acting like (and pardon my language) their field nigger and cower before their yell. God forbid that anyone ever screws up and does a no-knock on my house because I'll make them all famous....one way or another. I will not settle for living between two kinds of terrorists. IMHO Cops aught to answer to something like the UCMJ. The same set of rules I have to play by for as long as I serve my country.

Incidently, my friend is on the SWAT team, and has been out like five times in the ten years I've known him. Most of the time for some drunk divorcee who's barricaded himself inside his own home with a Rem870 and a couple rounds of birdshot. I dont know if it was kosher or not but I've probably put more rounds through those weapons than he has thanks to his generosity and friendship...like I said, its not so much that they're in his posession, its that LEOs get treated by the sheeple like some kind of superiors.
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 3:15:32 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/5/2002 3:16:18 AM EDT by natez]
Generally, full-auto weapons don't get issued to normal patrol cops. We would not do issue them to patrol cops.

SWAT weapons are often full auto. In the case of the 9mm subguns, they need to be FA. 9mm is a little on the weak side for immediate incapcitation, and is contollable enough that the solution for CQB is to put alot of 9mms into your threat.

Our .223 weapons that are FA are that way so that a tactical officer can lay down supressive fire (a rare occurrence that hasn't happened yet) to cover a downed person extraction, withdrawal or assault. Things have a way of going to crap quickly in CQB, and drills that emphasize rapid and immediate response to these bad things often use FA fire.

LE is different from the military, and FA gets used very infrequently on live missions; we have to account for every round fired, and we need to have a good idea where the rounds are going. While my issued carbine is FA, I have yet to use it operationally with the selector lever set to anything other than "SEMI." Our training emphasizes aimed fire for almost all situations, and not shooting is stressed in training as much as actually firing.

As to "Why does LE need FA Weapons?" Well, LE is more likely to use their weapons and to need additional capabilities. Hell, why do I, as a private citizen, need pre-ban assault weapons? Why do I need a registered NFA weapons (please someone give me a good answer to that one, because I have ben trying to talk my wife int that for about 5 years)? Becuase I WANT them. That should be all of the justification most anyone needs.
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 3:43:18 AM EDT
Well, "want" is justification enough - why does your wife need a ring with a stone in it? - she doesn't as it's just a symbol of your devotion to each other and a plain band works fine.

what we "need" is not some fed worker who may not even know what end of a gun the bullet comes out of telling us what kind of stock/flash suppressor/selector lever/etc we can have on our gun(s). Read the 2nd again it doesn't say anything about right as allowed by the gov't.

Use of F/A - mainly they are fun & should need arrive for multiple hits at close range are very useful.
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 4:00:40 AM EDT
Rebel, these posts have been very thought provoking, I'm not sure how I entirely feel, but I will put some of my thoughts down.

When I first read your post, to me it sounded like what the anti's must say in their in their coffee talks. What do they need those guns for ? They are not trained etc. but it seems like you got away from that.

Then you opened up a can of hostility towards LE and their actions based on a previous incident you had with LE. You opened up the race subject, was this incident racially motivated ? Are you a black man that was walking through a neighborhood with a gun, when a white housewife saw you and called the police ? If that was the case I am sorry. I do not know what to say. The only thing I can compare it to in my own experience is that when I was 16, I was walking down the road from my buddys house after hunting with him, when I got stopped by a game warden. I had an empty rifle just as the law stated, when walking on a public way. Therefore I was not hunting but he decided to give me a written warning for hunting alone which minors could not do then and took me home and embarrassed me in front of my family. So that is pretty minor but I was wronged, even if it was minor.

Another thought is that you stated you are in the military, and therefore you are probably a very disciplined person. I would not presume to know what your "job" is like because I have never been in the military. Have you been in LE ? Maybe you should not presume what these people go through. Having to do your job on a minimum of training because of budget constraints, equipment bought on low bid (for example see the recent headlines of NYPD being issued inferior ballistic vests). If they want more training they have to do it on their own time, buy additional gear if they need it, with their own money.

I have no idea what whole picture was during your incident. You lived through and you don't have a criminal record, so the police must have done something right. LE is accountable, they often face internal investigations, criminal investigations and civil suits. That is probably not up to UCMJ, but it is quite thought provoking, especially since a good many LE are now thinking about all of this in a split second during a deadly force confrontation.

The more I read the "field nigger" comment to more troubled I get, can you explain more ?
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 4:07:45 PM EDT
I've been wondering about this myself, but more in regard to light infantry than to cops. I've been playing SOCOM on PS2 (which is supposedly really realistic) and it seems like unless something is beltfed, once I set it to semi, I rarely end up switching it back. FA just blows through ammo too fast with too little effect unless I m right next to the target.
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 4:56:08 PM EDT
Rebel Gray, amen brother, I agree 100%
Can you imagine the first time a cop opens up with a full auto and mows down a dozen or so scumba... innocent bystanders? I have fired full auto more than a few times. It is not very controllable. Usually climbs up and to the right. Could there ever be a stronger argument against banning all guns than seeing a machine gun armed cop standing over a bunch of bullet riddled bystander corpses...
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 5:01:19 PM EDT

Originally Posted By OLY-M4gery:
Well the AR's never made it to the actual shooting in N. Hollywood.



How does killing a bank robber with AR15s equal not making it to the actual shooting in N. Hollywood?
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 6:57:25 PM EDT
I think he meant that the law ought to apply to everyone, no exceptions for governments that wrote the law.
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 7:13:21 PM EDT
So what you are saying then is that it's wrong for us not to have inexpensive full autos so this makes it wrong that government agencies can't have inexpensive full auto.

In other words if the 86 ban was repealed then you would fully support cops having machineguns then.

So it seems mostly it's about you can't have one and are jealous of those who can.

I on the other hand can afford machineguns but I could not afford the pay cut it would take to be a police officer. I would rather have the money than the cheap guns.

And it does not suprise me that you support the NRA the sell-out gun owners association.
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 8:13:17 PM EDT
Leo's need full auto so they can miss the target at a higher rate of fire.

Sgtar15
Link Posted: 12/5/2002 11:25:55 PM EDT
This is what I get for not responding sooner. I'll try and reply to everyone here....




Originally Posted By KOW:
Rebel, these posts have been very thought provoking, I'm not sure how I entirely feel, but I will put some of my thoughts down.



Glad I'm not all fluff and mirrors :)



When I first read your post, to me it sounded like what the anti's must say in their in their coffee talks. What do they need those guns for ? They are not trained etc. but it seems like you got away from that.


No, it was more "why cant I own a reasonably priced machinegun if I can pass all the requirements that cops have to pass for one?" kind of post. It kind of turned into a "WTF do cops need full auto for?" question though...


Then you opened up a can of hostility towards LE and their actions based on a previous incident you had with LE.


Once again my hostility wasnt ment to be directed towards the LE community at large, just the ones I've had memorable experiences with, and the ones that I read about in the news and see on TV lately. For that I blame the media more than the cops.



You opened up the race subject, was this incident racially motivated ?


No, actually I didnt, I used an expression that my family has used for a long time before I was ever born, to describe being put in a position of quivering, cowering servitude. Its not PC, but its also not a horrible way to describe how I felt I was being treated. Please note that I've never grown up against any open racism against negros, or any other minority, and that it was just a figure of speech.


Therefore I was not hunting but he decided to give me a written warning for hunting alone which minors could not do then and took me home and embarrassed me in front of my family. So that is pretty minor but I was wronged, even if it was minor.


I was going over to a friend's place before we went out (like I had a million times before). I had to go back for a rifle that he was going to help me work on. I was carrying it without the bolt, by the barrel, stock up, over my shoulder. The officer was coming down the road towards me, I smiled at him and nodded as I always did to acknowledge people passing me as a friendly gesture, he then jammed on his brakes, flew out of the car door with his Glock trained on me (it was a Glock 17 with a worn muzzle and some paint around the front of the slide, funny how when someone points a weapon at you in anger you tend to remember little details like that) and began screaming at me to throw down an antique rifle that I'd just spent the last six weeks restoring. Furthermore, after they cuffed me and called the whole damn PD to come see what was up, along with all my neighbors, I got my picture taken by a jackass reporter and made the front page of the paper the next day.


Another thought is that you stated you are in the military, and therefore you are probably a very disciplined person. I would not presume to know what your "job" is like because I have never been in the military. Have you been in LE ?


I was raised by my paternal grandfather who was at the time still an active member of the Pennsylvania State Highway Patrol, and had been since his discharge from the USMC in 1950. Up until that incident I'd actually considered myself friendly with different members of the police forces in the community where I lived as well as other forces around the country. I'd even considered becoming an LEO after leaving the military. I've also been stopped numerous times for carrying (legally) an openly displayed weapon and that was the only time, before or since, that I've ever had a loaded weapon trained on me, been screamed at, cuffed, and thrown in the back of a squad car for an hour. We do not live in Nazi Germany, I would have expected this sort of treatment from the Landespolezei or the Gestapo, not from a police officer in the US in a community where what I was doing was neither unusual or illegal.
You're right I'm diciplined, and even as a soldier I'm diciplined enough not to open fire on a friendly or civilians even if I might question their identity at first. I'm diciplined enough to know when I carry a loaded arm, I'm not going to point it at someones head unless I'M DAMNED SURE SOMETHING IS WRONG.


Maybe you should not presume what these people go through.


May be they should not be cops if they cannot handel excercising restraing and courtesy to a clean cut 21yr old walking in plain view with a dissassembeled, unloaded weapon where that kind of activity is not illegal. May be they should be MPs, or Marines, if they want to point their weapon at someone and scream at them like they are the scum of the earth. Or may be they could go work in Mexico City where they get to carry REALY BIG belt fed machine guns and take their pay from the crooks and shake down normal citizens. But here, in this country, that sort of activity and the kind of treatment I received should not, and will not be tollerated. Especially in this day and age where crooks and terrorists have access to cop uniforms, cop accessories, and cop cars. If cops want to serve in civil society, they should act civil, if cops want to act like Nazis, I'll be more than happy to provide them some resistance to hunt down and blow away.


Having to do your job on a minimum of training because of budget constraints, equipment bought on low bid (for example see the recent headlines of NYPD being issued inferior ballistic vests). If they want more training they have to do it on their own time, buy additional gear if they need it, with their own money.


Thats great. I hate tax payers who wont antie up more taxes either for programs that need to be paid for. What in the hell does this have to do with knowing the difference between acting like Rambo and acting like a reasonable human being in polite society?

Now getting back to my original point

I live in a non class-3 state, and the way I see it, unless you're in the military and on military operations, if civilians cant own it you shouldnt be able to carry it.

Jealousy? Yep. Outrage is more like it. No one put a gun to a guy's head and made him work in a high stress, dangerous job. If he cannot do it with a reasonable set of tools, the same set of tools avaliable to any other individual in the society he polices, then may be he aught to consider a new line of work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the time police only help after the fact. After the rape, after the kidnapping, after the murder, after the robbery. Most of the guys and gals who need firepower until help arrives arnt cops, they're ordinary citizens. And because of that kind of attitude, because of the attitude that a cop is somehow better than the people he protects, a lot of people have crimes comitted against them because the powers that be see no reason to allow them the tools that will save a cop's life and stop a crime.

I can handle an MP5, I can proficiently handle an XM177 or a CAR15 in auto or burst mode. So can 90% of the combat-arms school graduates who have ever served in the military. We'd easily come to ten times the number of cops in the crowd on any given day walking the streets. But if a crime occurs, if a bank robbery goes down and two heavily armoured machine gun toting individuals come out spraying everywhere. WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE "SPECIALISTS" because if WE tried to defend ourselves, or act like "light infantry" WE WOULD BE IN DANGER OR PUT OTHERS IN DANGER.

I'm sick of the double standard. I'm sick of the holier-than-thou treatment on the part of society. I can fight wars in some field or street far away, but I'm not QUALIFIED to bear arms in the defense of my nation at home?

Thats BS man, pure and simple BS...

Link Posted: 12/5/2002 11:50:01 PM EDT
Rebel Gray, Greetings.
I am a lurker on these here AR-15 pages, and a Police Officer in WA State.
I do not respond to many posts. Yours got me.
I do not know you in any way shape or form. I have spent my entire adult life in uniform. 6 years in the USAF Para-Rescue, and the last 14 1/2 years as a Police Officer. Patrol, DT, Firearms, tec...
Also, I am an NRA Highpower XTC and LR Master, AA Skeet shooter, NRA Life member. I am a pro-gun guy and wish every good person was armed.
First Off, alot of departments are short handed, hence the fancy gear. Right, wrong or otherwise, that is the sign of the times.
What is your role in life??? Have you been in a gun fight or "just a fight" as an adult? I work in the community I was born in, and grew up 12 miles from. I am here because I want to be.
I have been in multiple shooting engagements. Did I use F/A? No.
I carry a 1911 and a S&W 38 on my person. I have a Colt M4 in my patrol car. Am I adequatley armed.
Its time to run. I'll leave you with this.
I wish you the best in anything you do, but, before you spout off, come see what we do.
We are not machine gunning, Rights stomping assholes. My Gun control is a 780+ score in a XTC match and a clean with my handgun and rifle at work.
I am a father, husband, competitive shooter and Police Officer.
Best of Luck
John Van Santford
bpd459@yahoo.com
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 12:15:27 AM EDT
The only use for full auto-fire is in house-to-house fighting, or to provide covering fire. It has no use in law enforcement.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 3:29:52 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2002 3:31:38 AM EDT by KOW]
Qouted from RebelGray
I live in a non class-3 state, and the way I see it, unless you're in the military and on military operations, if civilians cant own it you shouldnt be able to carry it.

Jealousy? Yep. Outrage is more like it. No one put a gun to a guy's head and made him work in a high stress, dangerous job. If he cannot do it with a reasonable set of tools, the same set of tools avaliable to any other individual in the society he polices, then may be he aught to consider a new line of work.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the time police only help after the fact. After the rape, after the kidnapping, after the murder, after the robbery. Most of the guys and gals who need firepower until help arrives arnt cops, they're ordinary citizens. And because of that kind of attitude, because of the attitude that a cop is somehow better than the people he protects, a lot of people have crimes comitted against them because the powers that be see no reason to allow them the tools that will save a cop's life and stop a crime.

I can handle an MP5, I can proficiently handle an XM177 or a CAR15 in auto or burst mode. So can 90% of the combat-arms school graduates who have ever served in the military. We'd easily come to ten times the number of cops in the crowd on any given day walking the streets. But if a crime occurs, if a bank robbery goes down and two heavily armoured machine gun toting individuals come out spraying everywhere. WE HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE "SPECIALISTS" because if WE tried to defend ourselves, or act like "light infantry" WE WOULD BE IN DANGER OR PUT OTHERS IN DANGER.

I'm sick of the double standard. I'm sick of the holier-than-thou treatment on the part of society. I can fight wars in some field or street far away, but I'm not QUALIFIED to bear arms in the defense of my nation at home?

Thats BS man, pure and simple BS... end of quote



I feel a lot better after your reply, I hear you about the double standard. There are double standards all through life, and they are all frustrating.

One thing was that you said that LE waits around for the specialists to come save the day. Thats what happened at Columbine and LE took big hits for that and have started changing their training and tactics for the so called "active shooter". They train now to enter the building in a diamond formation and proceed quickly as possible to where the shooter is.

So basically what I'm saying is that Columbine was a watershed event changing the way about how an active shooter is dealt with, as 9/11 was a watershed event about how people will deal in the future with a plane hijacking. What we can hope for is that the realization is that people can indeed protect themselves and should be afforded the means to protect themselves without a tragic watershed event to prove it.

Good luck to you and happy holidays.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 6:36:21 AM EDT
I am confused? Why would anyone not need a Machinegun? Its like why have Air Conditioning in your car or a CD player? Because you can and if and when you need it, it is there, even though you do not need any of it. You sound like some of the Anti Gun People where I live. True the only situation that automatic fire is need is you are over run however if I were a cop I would want one just to be safe of by the way I also own machine guns and I am neither LEO or Military. Check your State laws because Machineguns are legal to own in most free States. I think the other way why should the Military and LEO have them and the general public not? Out numbered maybe but under gunned never. Everyone needs a Class III weapon. Remember it was the farmers and common people with there weapons that made America free and it is them same common people with guns that will keep it that way. Oh and as the North Hollywood if they would have had MG’s it would not have been as bad. The truth is that the Officers in North Hollywood had to procure weapons and ammo from some of the local FFL Dealers in the area to keep them in the fight. So what is your point?
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 6:47:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
So what you are saying then is that it's wrong for us not to have inexpensive full autos so this makes it wrong that government agencies can't have inexpensive full auto.

In other words if the 86 ban was repealed then you would fully support cops having machineguns then.

So it seems mostly it's about you can't have one and are jealous of those who can.

I on the other hand can afford machineguns but I could not afford the pay cut it would take to be a police officer. I would rather have the money than the cheap guns.



The fact remains that if we the people can not own machines guns purchased after 1986 then LEOs should not be able to ether. We are the people mentioned in the 2nd amendment, government officials where not covered under that amendment. If it is not possible for us to own a new M16 then why should a police officer? They can carry/own semi only weapons just like we can. Further quite with the "you are an anti gunner because you don't think police should own full-auto". An individual officer would not participate in the activities that would warrant the use of full-auto. Allowing police to carry full-auto weapons not only puts them one step closer to being a military force, it also bestows on them privileges that we the people do not, but should have have.

The Azalin
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 7:36:57 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2002 8:07:07 AM EDT by David_Hineline]
Well in my opinion pro-gun means guns for everyone, cops included, ex-felons who have paid thier debt. to society, everyone.

Just because you can't afford one or perhaps don't see the need for one, this justifies you to say someone else can't have one.

That is something a little whiney jealous baby would say.

I as an individual feel the need/desire to carry automatic weapons and chances are very very good I will never need to fire in anger. Go ahead use your logic to take my machineguns away Mr NRA member.

I can guarantee you this paper target is not gonna walk away after I get done with it.

myweb.cableone.net/uziforme/M16-9mm.WMV


" I am not an anti-gunner but I am sure you have no need for weapons like that"

"Well sometimes it's just about want and not about need"
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:06:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2002 9:15:24 AM EDT by gijohnny223]
Bullshit. It is about your right as a free citizen to own machineguns, suppressors etc. The second you govern one you govern them all. The NRA is for the Duck hunter types for the most part. Friends the 2nd Amendments is not about hunting rifles or shotguns, it is about the people arming themselves to defend them against a tyrannical government. Want and need have nothing to do with it. It is about your God given right as a US citizen. Once they take your means of defending yourself away, kiss all of your rights away.

You want freedom here it is my daughter with my "suppressed UZI SMG" That my friends is freedom.


2 AK47's, 5 AR15's, 1 M16, 1 Suppressed UZI, 1 Suppressed Norrell 10/22 MG and over 3000 rounds. I have my rights
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 9:44:23 AM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Well in my opinion pro-gun means guns for everyone, cops included, ex-felons who have paid thier debt. to society, everyone.

Just because you can't afford one or perhaps don't see the need for one, this justifies you to say someone else can't have one.




I agree that everyone should be able to own machine guns. Unfortunately giving police officers the ability to own them, and not the average citizen is wrong. They have no need to have one if I cannot own one as well. The machine guns they are buying are likely to be used against us in the end anyway. If police departments could not buy machine guns that they need/want then maybe they would have to team up with the 2nd amendment crowd. This would give us a lot more momentum. As such they are a large gun using segment of society that has no need to support us.

I own a Colt 614 for your information. I do not think that I should have to pay $5600 for a used M16 that was maybe worth $600. The point that I am trying to make is that police officers are not better than average civilians, as such they should not have the right to own something that we can not. When is the last time the antis said that cops should not be able to carry firearms? Further you should remember that the police work for us. I have the right to dictate what my tax dollar purchase.

The Azalin
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 10:24:57 AM EDT
Know what life is/was/never will be fair.

There are people who will always have something better/cheaper/faster than we do.

Don't know how you can not support your local police but seem to be fine with military having any firearm they damn well please.

Since the general public are sheep, and will not arm themselves, the local police and guard units are the source of ready weapons in quantity we will find.

I suppose you don't support cops getting free doughnuts either.

A big city cop while chances are will run into a shitstorm more often he is just a radio call away from what ever equipment and backup he needs.

A rural cop is on his own with no help for miles and better have every tool he could concieve of needing at his ready access.

I support local police officers in all thier endeavors.

Yes the cops work for you. A good employer should support thier employees and provide them with the proper tools.

And if you get too tired of that 614 that you have feel free to sell it for the $600 you say it is worth. I can have a check in the mail shortly.

Link Posted: 12/6/2002 10:25:23 AM EDT
David Hineline hit the nail on the head. This is NOT a need based society.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 10:32:47 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/6/2002 10:39:13 AM EDT by Delta_3_63]

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
Don't know how you can not support your local police but seem to be fine with military having any firearm they damn well please.



I hope you're not trying to infer that there is any similarity between the needs/capabilities of the military vs civilian law enforcement.


A rural cop is on his own with no help for miles and better have every tool he could concieve of needing at his ready access.


If you can substitute the word 'cop' with 'farmer', 'rancher', 'banker', 'secretary', 'engineer', 'pizza delivery boy', or any other civilian occupation without changing your opinion then I'm with you.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 10:40:14 AM EDT
Any machinegun that an Officer carries is not there own weapon. It is owned and papered to there Department. And With them they are governed by the same laws that we are. There are certain lines of defense for us here in America, Military, LEO and then ourselves. I am still not seeing any point to this argument.
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:05:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By David_Hineline:
And if you get too tired of that 614 that you have feel free to sell it for the $600 you say it is worth. I can have a check in the mail shortly.

myweb.cableone.net/uziforme/David16.jpg



I think that we might be arguing two different issues here. My point is very simple. The 2nd amendment gives us the right to own anything that a police department can own. I can't see how it is justified for a police officer to have a machine gun in order to defend civilians if civilians can't own machine guns to defend them selves. If the unconstitutional 86 ban sunsets I will gladly take your $600. Thanks for the future offer.

The Azalin
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:07:48 PM EDT
I don't think that I am coming across very clear on another issue. I think that police departments should be able to use machine guns. Its just that anti gunners agree with me, but can't see the flip side that we should be able to own machine guns for the same reasons.

The Azalin
Link Posted: 12/6/2002 1:51:41 PM EDT
Looks like you are comming around from your original post of what good are full auto weapons.

When the military comes to get us if/when then the LEO and Citizen owned guns will be our last stronghold.

We need LEO and Citizen guns here because our military is always off on some other shore taking the guns away from the locals.
Top Top