Boland, This clown Maynard obviously doesn't get it.

I have executed plenty of wannarnts where the convct had access to plenty of firearms. They are almost never legal guns. And yes some are converted to full auto.

Does that make me want to be anti-gun? NO WAY.

It makes me want to go in PREPARED.


PS I don't usually have an APC and M60, but that looked like LA and I can see where one would come in handy in CA, or DC. It's always places with the stricted gun control that you need the best stuff. Criminals love those places.

[fixed the quote bracket - Paul]

My little town of 30,000 people is getting its very own Tactical Rescue Team!!

There has only been 3 incidents over the past 35 years that I can remember where one would have been even remotely needed.

My gun club just finished a new indoor range and are building new outdoor ranges...

They have asked if they can "borrow" our range for their training....

Borrow I said?  You do mean RENT?  Don't you?

Now the question is How much does one Rent an indoor range for?

Why would LE ever need a supressed, full-auto SBR? Good question, following your logic, why would anyone ever need one?

Full-auto- Not very useful in heavier calibers, but a must if using a pistol caliber shoulder weapon for high-risk entries.

SBR-Again, a must for building clearance or entries. Even a 10.5" or 14.5" is awkward in a building clearance.

Supressed. Lets think. Shooting out motion lights and street light quietly (although a pellet gun could work for that, too). Guard dogs. Meth labs. In fact, some states are being to REQUIRE the use of supressed weapons when serving warrants on meth labs as an OSHA-type safety function.

As far as the "rights" issue goes, Maynard, officers do not have the same rights as other civilians. Officers have fewer rights. Officers do not have full 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th or 14th Amendment rights. There is a large amount of profession-specific case law about this. How many other jobs does your employer get the right to search you, your car or your house without a warrant or even probable cause? Officers give up rights to do their jobs. The do have the occasional "duty" to carry weapons that might be restricted from sale to public, which I personally don't agree with. If you have $2200, and you are not a felon or nutjob, you should be able to buy that MP5SD (they are pretty cool, BTW).

The true answer to the drug problem has already been found in several Middle Eastern and Asian countries.

First offense possession of an illegal drug gets you a speedy public execution!!

Get the liberals to shut up about cruel and unusual punishment(which it is not)!

I say that summary execution should also apply to possession of illegal firearms. Ignorance would be no excuse for violations of state or the federal 1994 Ominibus Crime Law. It would save the lives of countless police officers.

The PD need militirized SWAT teams to take out dangerous "madmen" who stockpile "assault weapons" and "sniper rifles" in "mountain fortresses".

While I agree that the police does need some military gear to deal with well armed criminals, the potential for abuse is high. It's really the same thing as the civilian possession of firearms. The potential for abuse is there, so it's an issue of trust. Do you trust the people who handle these weapons to act responsibly.

It's pretty scary entering an unsecured room, especially in the dark (night vision limits your peripheral vision, so again, it sucks). Put yourself in their shoes, wouldn't you want the weapons that will do the job and armor that will protect you when you go up against well armed criminals? Even then, there's always an element of danger, you never know what is boobytrapped.

No, that isn't what it should read. It is quote from George Orwell, who BTW, was a staunch ant-communist and supported RKBA.

Owell was British. His experiences with the anti-fascists in Spain (who were mostly socialists or communists) forever soured him on those types. During and after WWII, he was a frequent political collumnist, and wrote strongly anti-communist pieces. I also recall reading essays from him about the importance of armed citizenry in keeping societies free (the Right to Keep and Bear Arms). 1984 and Animal Farm were both scathing attacks on totaliatarian and socialist systems. It is pretty clear where his sypathies were.

I do not have a direct source for Orwell's quote, but has been on the wall in my office for some time.

Right on most points...But, Orwell was a socialist to his dying days... What quote of Orwell's is on your office wall ?
                             Gib

Only if your living in a world without crime, altho I agree with your principle that Rights shouldn't be traded away, "those that will sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither" (if I haven't totally misquoted that).

[b]WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT WAIT [/b]

Has anyone noticed that Liberty76 started this discussion and hasn't posted a thing since then?   Now me thinks something stinketh here........

He, Liberty76, posts a controversial topic, then leaves it to us to [flame] about

Lib are you a shit stirrer or what?  I bet my next pay check you are lurking around in here just watching us go at it.

But that is ok, debate is good.

The biggest irony is that it is not the job of the police to protect anyone in this country, their have been many law suits against the police becuse they did not protect someone, and thoes bringing the suits have always lost. Under our system it is the duty of ever citizen himself and each other. "It is every mans right, nay his duty to be armed at all times" you guess who this quote came from.
Most people today are willing to neglect this duty and abrogate this responsibility to the police, you will therefor get the police state you so crave. In the U.S.A. the police were set up as an reaction force, not an pro-active force, which is what you have everywhere else in the world.
And I will end it there, because the pie is here!

I like to see LEO's like on this post saying that any law abiding citizen should be able to get what they get. The problem is most LEO's do not agree with you. If you take away all the toys LEO's have until they are legal for the common folk Every LEO in the country would be screeming for it. Just an aside talked with my Sister-in-law's brother (Deputy in Ohio) and he told me it was legal for him to carry concealed anywhere in the country (A lie) but no citizen should be allowed to carry when I asked him why he said LEO's are "different"

Oly,
   Ya can't have it both ways, so you have to decide which you prefer. Constitional protections that safeguarded us over the course of 300 years. Or the 'safeguard' of a world without crime, or personal rights. I'd take my chances with crime anytime, and do anyways....Gib

There are many police officers out there today who should not be.

You have to remeber that police officers are people just like everyone else.

And every other occupation has people in it who should not be...child molesting priests, incompetent doctors, crooked politicians/lawyers, and the list goes on and on.

The problem with police are, 99% of the public never deals with a police officer unless they are; (A. a victim of a crime) or (B. a criminal thenselves.) in either case it is an unpleasant experience.

That in itself is a big part of the problem with public relations and policing.

The other part is the pricks that decide they want to be a policeman because they want to have a badge and a gun. They have absolutley no desire to "Help" anyone, all they want is to toss around bad guys.

To answer the question about the police turning into a military type organization, I can say with 100% certainty that it is.

I am currently attending a local police academy and they are constantly stressing that "This is a para-military organization."

I do not agree that it should be though.

Police agencies in my opinion, have no business dressing up in BDU'S Kevlar helmets, gas masks, etc. UNLESS there is a credible threat....i.e. the bank robbbers in LA a few years ago.

If you guys out there have a problem with police, do like I did and join a police academy, and put someone in a blue uniform who you know will do the right thing...YOU!!!!

Yeah, I was just watching you guys go at it! [:D] You can send the pay check via paypal to [email protected] [;)]

I wanted to see what they LEO's had to say about this.

SWAT teams and heavy weaponry can be useful, but they should only be used in limited and very rare situations. Hostage situations and a crazy shooter are two great examples they should be used in. I don't think they should be used to executing search warrants(esp. no-knocks which should be outlawed), nor used in the "war on drugs". In fact, we should end the "war on drugs" immediately. It is an unwinable war, and it has only led to more restrictions on liberties. Drugs are still plentiful. This "war" is a failure.

Kudos to Boland, pakrat and the other rational posters.  Way to go guys.

I'm not in LE but work with them on the mil side of the house occasionally.  All this militarization of the police talk is just nonsense.  The cop-haters accuse LE of being military wannabes.  Bull.  When I see thousands of SWAT guys in MH-6's, then I *may* listen to you.  

Police officers enforce the law, military operators enforce policy.  SWAT ain't MOUT and never will be.  I see all the posts on here where people are posting up pics of our guys in Afganistan and saying "Whoa, cool!  Look at all the cool stuff he's got!"  But when someone posts a picture of a SWAT officer with the same gear he's called a "JBT" (which is such a lame-assed term...some of you really need to move on).  What kind of logic is that?  Would any of you keyboard commandos raid a crack house with only a handgun?

Supressors are mandatory in hazardous material environments.  BDU's are flame retardant.  The chemicals persent in drug labs are *highly* flammable.  So SWAT should not protect themselves (and the neighborhood) from a catastrophic explosion?  I guess so as long as it makes you feel better, huh?

When I deploy I am greatful that there are guys who will protect my family and property from dirtbags by being proactive.  Whatever they need to do that, fine.  They don't tell me what to carry into the fray, so I don't tell them.  I don't know any that are out to get your guns.

-SARguy

I want my Right's protected, but I am also aware that a criminal that is breaking into my house and stealing my stuff, or threatening my life is encroaching on my Right's just like a SWAT raid without a warrant or probable cause. I want my home to be my castle, but I knw that a Judge can issue a warrant to search my home if there is PC......................

"To answer the question about the police turning into a military type organization, I can say with 100% certainty that it is.

I am currently attending a local police academy and they are constantly stressing that "This is a para-military organization."

I do not agree that it should be though.

Police agencies in my opinion, have no business dressing up in BDU'S Kevlar helmets, gas masks, etc. UNLESS there is a credible threat....i.e. the bank robbbers in LA a few years ago.

If you guys out there have a problem with police, do like I did and join a police academy, and put someone in a blue uniform who you know will do the right thing...YOU!!!!"  SCHV

**************

Before you jump on the band wagon, get out of the academy before you try speaking about something with limited exposure.

Is police paramilitary?  Yes and No.
Yes, in that we have a rank structure rules and regulations.  We were uniforms and have uniformity standards.  We give and take orders

No.  In that we, are for the most part, here to be a servant to our citizens and communities  In serving, we become service oriented.  They are the customers, we are here to provide a service.

Do we wear Kevlars.  Yes.  Why?  It's pretty obvious.  If you work a major crowd event, then you want something protecting your grape.  Also, if you happen to have to go in on someone in a tactical enviroment, then the same reasons apply.  Does this make us para military.  No.  It is just common freaking sense.  BDU's, OD greens, black BDU's they all serve a purpose, depending on your teams area/mission/servicability.  Again, does this make us para military.  No.  

The military has been doing things for many years.  Just because we adopt or adapt some things that they do for my SRT, does that make it militarized or para military.  NO, it does not.  Why should my team have to reinvent the wheel when some things have been tried and proven in the worst enviroments?  Do we really need to address gas masks?  Maybe we should, if you have tac enviroment and need to deny areas to the bad guy or drive him out or disrupt his senses, how do you do it?  Hang your ass near the A/C intake and fart?  No, you gas him.  This is one of the very best methods to ensure officer safety.

My advice to you, Sir, is to get out on the streets, get sometime on the road, prayerfully you will have a good FTO, and realize things do become differant and much clearer once you get out of the academy.

BTW, be careful, when you get in patrol vehicle, not to get your stem caught in the door! [;)]

Lib76 - no knock warrants have been covered here before, I think.  But they are used very infrequently.  The judge must be convinced that there is exigent circumstances or a great danger to the officers to announce, in order to sign a no knock warrant.  I have never written any warrants myself, but I think I have been told that they are more difficult to obtain.  If you ain't doing anything illegal, why worry?  BTW, check's is in the mail! [:D]

So most "citizens" are restricted to a Glock handgun and a R-870 shotgun?? Cause that's all I'm allowed............ And more than a few dept's don' allow any long guns, unless you are a ninja or wahtever.

I and many others try to do what is reasonble to protect individuals and the public at large. Yup, I also wonder how many of those suits start with, "I told the police my (fill in drug dealer, bookie, loan shark, abusive spouse) was going to hurt me, they next time I went to wherever they were...... I agree, I would also point out LEO's are citizens, and that the states with the most restrictive gun laws have the most restricitive self defense laws also. Make perfect sense.......to [:o)]
Well put. Not so sure about that, some places are better in some ways, many are much worse.
{homer simpson voice} mmmmmmmm pie.......

You know what's even scarier?

THE CATO INSTITUTE and THE WASHINGTON POST!

First off, regular police officers should not be wearing combat boots with trousers tucked and bloused.  It gives them a distinctly "jack-booted thug" appearance.  Our local police started this, and after a number of comments to the chief, they went back to more normal appearance.

Also, use of SKI MASKS.  If a man is carrying a gun and wearing a ski mask, he should be shot as a terrorist.  Remember the L.A. bank holdup shootout?  The bad guys were indistinguishable from the good guys.  I don't give a rat's rear end if there are big yellow letters across the back of their shirts saying SWAT, or POLICE, or whatever.  I say to all police, if what you are doing is legal and above-board, you should not be hiding your face.  We don't allow banana republic style "secret police" in this country.

No %$(%^&* ski masks.  And to call them "balaclavas" does not make it any different, they are still ski masks.  

In many southern states, there are masking laws, aimed at the old KKK.  There are exceptions for stage plays, Mardi Gras, Halloween.  Other than that, and I have studied these laws myself, there are NO exceptions for law enforcement.  This is a felony.  And if you are carrying a weapon while committing a felony, well, that compounds it.  You are a terrorist.

So is it just the blousing? Are you ok with "combat boots"? (which if accurately named would be "walking around base boots"...) What about BDU pants?


Ummmm???? What are you talking about? Most of the officers involved were wearing the traditional LAPD blue uniforms. And apparently the SWAT uniform of the day was a SWAT vest and khaki shorts. The BG's were the only "masked" people that I saw involved in the shoot-out.

I don't know why the need for the ski mask either, some suggest that in situations like meth labs, the whole "lab" is combustible and the mask may prevent burns in case of explosion, I don't know.

No knock raids are a miniscule per centage of all warrants executed , and usually authorized only for situations where the element of surprise is needed for officer safety and the preservation of evidence.
As for Columbine, the first ad hoc teams were moving into the building and exchanging gunfire with the shooters within minutes. The two hour  thing I see bandied about the net is almost all hogwash. Except in the largest cities, you can expect a good hour to an hour and a half for the closest swat-type teams to respond, set up, evaluate and move in. Jefferson County was fairly urban, so the teams were actually on-site sooner than that . This topic has been beat to death before. Stop bringing it up is all I can say.

Drugs are the scourge of the country. People who suggest that legalizing drugs would improve the situation are lost in la-la land.

Sounds like your car wasn't properly registered. No registration, car gets towed. From now on, register your car. maybe you've learned that in the last 12 years.

  You would not "let" him tow it? Since when was it up to you to LET him tow it? I can see what happened there. You decided to give the officer some guff and you got cuffed for it. You created that mess, so stop blaming the officer for your own misdeeds after 12 years and grow up.
 
  We can stop you outside the jurisdiction if the offense was witnessed inside our jurisdiction. We can also arrest outside our jurisdiction for misdemeanors and felonies, so that jurisdiction stuff is pointless.

 I am sure that all the losers that officer arrested felt like they were the victim. Tough.

Because crack is nothing like alcohol. Yes and every "junkie" that dies...... is someones son or daughter, sister, brother, father, mother and probably more than a few people's friends, and their loss will effect many other peopele.

Not to mention the people they will effect committing crimes to get drugs or while under the influence of drugs.

Or the amount of money that will be spent in medical expenses, insurance costs (for the people they injure or steal from), rehabilitation costs, Social Security benefits, Medicaid benefits, or subsidized housing, when the drugs don't kill them, only disable them. Guess who gets to pay those costs?

I used to work at the Veterans Admin. more than a few of the veterans were peacetime military personnel that had a chronic condition diagnosed when they were in the militery, making them eligible for LIFETIME benefits from the V.A. in some cases they knew about the condition prior to enlistment, and lied to get in, but are eligible for benefits none the less. I was also familiar with a few that fried their brains while in the military, so they were living as in-patients at the VA because of their "service-connected" disability, the used drugs while in the military and now we're all paying the price...................

They are illegal because of the negative effects they have on the user and society. Legalizing them wont solve anything, and puts out the message that somehow they are "ok" to use.  That is something I totally disagree with.

Yes, but you are sugesting opening the floodgates, and making the problem much worse. I'll point out that we also have a drinking age of 21, would you propose the same thing for drugs or scrap the age limits on both, because kids will use drugs anyway. Waht about murder, it's illegal, people still do it, and more than a few see nothing wrong with it, should we legalize that too?

"did we give up when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor, no we didn't......." The only unwinnable fight is the one you refuse to join.  I think that "want" is being attacked. How can you seriously say "legalize drugs" in a society that is working to get rid of cigarettes because of their effects on peoples health????????????????????????

No idea, every month when I read the officers killed summary from the FBI very few seem to be killed in "the war on drugs", but more than a few of the suspects seem under the influence, of whatever, even though that had little to do with the police reason for contacting them. A fair number of the deaths also involve the police contacting suicidal or emotionally disturbed persons.



I don't like intrusions on people's liberty, I also find fault with people who do whatever they want whenever the want because the don't care how their actions effect other people.

There isn't an easy answer. A lot of the problems "police" have to deal with are rooted in issues that "society" at large hasn't dealt with or hasn't dealt with effectively. "Police" are also individuals that are a part of "society", the way that they operate is also dictated to a large degree by what "society", wants or expects of the "police". Part of the problem is "police" can't force "society" to deal with problems but the "police" are often forced to deal with "societies" problems..............

As far as "militariztion", II think you guys are all in favor of it when you see the N. Hollywood bank robbery............ by that time it's to late, if you haven't prepared........ Police deadly force incidents often last seconds, if you don't have the equipment, or manpower there when the shooting starts it's unlikely that it will arrive before the shooting stops.

You have to have what you need, when you need it.......

VA-gunnut

Have you been up too late?  Have you not had your gallon of coffee?  But if memory serves me correct Pearl Harbor was bombed by[>:/].......anyone?anyone? thats right..... JAPAN![:O]

That was me, Not the guy with the cool eagle logo......... It's a line from Animal House, in it one of the other characters is about to correct the speaker, when someone else says let him go he's on a roll..............

it was an (failed apparently) attempt at humor. I'll try harder in the future[:)]

GENTLEMEN -
  I, Ms.PAKRAT, must officially appologize for screwing around in this forum under my husband's sign in name.  Got carried away.  Please forgive.  Have to go and get on my KNEES and beg the hubby for absolution.[0:)] Had a great time. Stay safe!  Must hurry he just carried his new Brownells catalog up the stairs to bed. [:D]

so what you're really trying to say is that police with "ski masks" are terrorists and should be shot?

Come on don't sugar coat it!!

DITTO...it worked with alcohol prohibition. and legalizing the second amendment in inner cities would also help to reduce violent crime. the people can defend themselves from those roving bands of asswhippers.

expecting a [flame] on how drugs are poison and destructive of our youths wich is true. but this is beside the point. Deterence is great, but wasting an increasing amount of money and buearocracy does not solve the problem. wide scale drug usage and related crime is the symptom not the cause. the ban itself is the cause because it creates the market for it.

non-drug addict lib

i agree with police using suppressed SBR weapons. but your last sentence seemed like a character assassination to me. please dont use left-wing debate tactics.

I've never been anti-LEO. im pro-LEO AND pro-Decriminalizing drugs.

i do agree with Maynard that the M60 would never EVER be usefull for law inforcement purposes. the 30-06 in an urban/city environment has to much penetration. unless they were using some sort of frangible round, but why not just use the M4?

some criminals use automatic weapons. SWAT teams do serve a purpose. i however believe they should be city/state based and not for every county. most criminals do NOT use AK's, UZI's, and the like. they use Lorcin's, Jennings, Llama's, Ruger's, RG's, 12ga pump's, and the like.

WOW!!! Both Boland and Carl Marks think that people who sell drugs should be executed for selling their "dangerous" products to people who choose to be addicts. drugs dont load themselves into pipes or needles and fly through the air looking for someone to dope up.

It's also a law in some countries that gun ownership is punishable by death or long prison sentence which almost as bad. i wonder if that would be cruel and unusual punishment?

if a drug dealer actually forces someone to become addicted to their wares, then i say prosecute, but punishing them for providing such a substance to a person whom did not take responsiblilty for their own health would be like saying a gun dealer should be executed for selling a firearm to a criminal or sucidal person.

my .02 cents worth. lib

whats wrong with a conservative new paper like the Washington Post and the CATO Institute? are you thinking of the Washington Times wich is Left-wing?

CATO lib