My argument was arming ALL LEOs with AWs. And in case anyone misunderstood, with AW I'm referring to assault weapons, no automatic weapons. I have no problem with SWAT or a senior LEO having one. The problem I have is with all the dipshit rookie cops using them. I've read of far too many incidents where a cop emptied two clips from his pistol and only 2 of the rounds hit. Then you hand them an AR that will reach several hundred yards before hitting the ground? No thanks. I don't think the BOA shootout demonstrated the need for LEO AWs either. If they had been allowed to use slugs, they would've knocked their ass down in no-time. [:D]
>>Why shouldn’t LEOs be able to exercise the same rights that all have? <<
Sure, but its going beyond that. In the last couple years theres an alarming trend of wanting to better arm LEOs while taking away the same right from civilians.
>>Why should I NOT be able to outgun these full-auto felons? <<
That's exactly what I'm talking about. There's this attitude like this happens all the time. BOA was ONE incident. Many LEOs act like they run into this stuff 10 times a day. How often does any officer ever run into a criminal wearing body armor and emptying full-auto AWs at them? BOA and the 1986 shootout with FBI are about the only incidents I can think of. And even in the '86 incident, it was the FBIs fault. They should've gone in with a SWAT team, especially knowing what they were up against.
Bill294, you sound like one of the typical morons on MSNBC spewing their BS. It was a simple question, and I didn't start this thread to have people calling me names, just because they disagree with something.
MG_ME, I noticed that too. The patrol officers got the weapons from B&B, but in the end, SWAT is the one who took them out. But I believe one of the snipers took out the first guy just as he committed suicide. On some videos of the shootout, I also noticed how some LEOs were armed with ARs, but they stayed behind buildings and didn't shoot back. [?]