Trump's America

[Enhance]

20 hours ago, dudeguyy said:

Dang. And here I'm sitting around debating getting ONE handgun...

In your defense, I have a coworker who owns about 15 guns, but only one handgun. The rest are shotguns/rifles for hunting and sport. His wife demanded he lock his handgun completely separate from the rifles/shotguns when they had kids, because even though all the weapons were locked up, the handgun presented a different sort of safety hazard.

[Moiraine]

I think my household has 4 guns now... I've lost track. In November it had 0.

[Danny Bateman]

We're regressing at a rapid rate. At least he's been crystal clear about his stance in this area. He's always going to side with the police, even at the expense of very questionable policy and citizen rights.

 

 

[commando]

4 minutes ago, dudeguyy said:

We're regressing at a rapid rate. At least he's been crystal clear about his stance in this area. He's always going to side with the police, even at the expense of very questionable policy and citizen rights.

 

 

flamethrowers, bazookas, and mortars?   or Abrhams, Apaches, and f-15s? 

[BigRedBuster]

Was it a concern to anyone that the Virginia militia that marched with the nazis was more heavily armed than the police?

[Danny Bateman]

22 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Was it a concern to anyone that the Virginia militia that marched with the nazis was more heavily armed than the police?

I don't think we should use a small gathering of nutcases armed to the teeth to play solider as an excuse to put more military weaponry in the hands of our police.

 

It's the complete opposite of the recommendations of the Obama Task Force for 21st Century Policing. Which is probably why it's being done at all.

[Enhance]

Some law enforcement agencies, including those in Lancaster County when I used to live there, tried as hard as possible to hide and obscure whenever they wanted to use higher grade military equipment. There was a standoff at a airport hotel a few years ago and the county brought in a militarized vehicle for potentially assaulting the facility, and when local media asked about it, they tried to play coy and say "what vehicle?" It was off the record later that a sheriff told me they don't talk about that vehicle because it gives people the wrong impression + gives a hint at potential tactics they may use in a dangerous situation.

[Danny Bateman]

48 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Some law enforcement agencies, including those in Lancaster County when I used to live there, tried as hard as possible to hide and obscure whenever they wanted to use higher grade military equipment. There was a standoff at a airport hotel a few years ago and the county brought in a militarized vehicle for potentially assaulting the facility, and when local media asked about it, they tried to play coy and say "what vehicle?" It was off the record later that a sheriff told me they don't talk about that vehicle because it gives people the wrong impression + gives a hint at potential tactics they may use in a dangerous situation.

 

Which is why I believe the task force recommended limiting the use of this equipment as much as possible.

 

If our goal is to build a stronger relationship (+ trust) between our officers and the communities they serve, this type of stuff is absolutely not going to help.

 

Something tells me that is not Trump's goal.

[Moiraine]

Trump wants the "thugs" to know their place.

[QMany]

12 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Was it a concern to anyone that the Virginia militia that marched with the nazis was more heavily armed than the police?

 

I didn't hear what Charlottesville police were carrying; were they? I have to think the local police has sufficient firepower if they wanted. I know suburban St. Louis. police carry a handgun and then have an assault rifle and shotgun in their patrol car day-to-day. 

[BIGREDIOWAN]

Do the police need MRAP's? Probably not, but we do need armored vehicles for certain situations. Officer down, hostage scenarios, active shooter scenarios, etc. There are several examples where vehicles like this would/were/are helpful i.e. Dallas shooting, San Diego shooting, LA bank robbery, etc. You've already paid for that MRAP to be built and used by the U.S. military. Once that vehicle is decommissioned as a military vehicle and tagged for sale why wouldn't you as a tax payer want your dollar stretched as far as it can be? I know I want my tax payments to go as far as they can. Your local SWAT team might be able to use that vehicle, but can't afford to get one. This program allows them the opportunity to get one of those vehicles, stretch your dollar, and not have to request an armored vehicle which the tax payer in that area has to help pay for. Just because the MRAP is mine resistant doesn't mean that's why the police department, sheriff's office, state patrol, etc. wants that vehicle or needs that vehicle. It's a byproduct of the main feature of that vehicle which is the fact that it is armored and that's what law enforcement is interested in. I can't tell you how wildly unpopular not allowing access to this program was from the law enforcement perspective in today's challenging budgeting environment.

 

The police have to have the ability to handle a variety of different situations. Be prepared for the worst and hope for the best. When we aren't people are HIGHLY critical of us not being prepared for X situation. A few of our local agencies have Hummers. They are not going out and doing traffic stops in these vehicles which is what your average person thinks they are doing with these vehicles which is laughable and ridiculous. These vehicles are used for community events, parades and more than once have rescued folks stranded on the interstate during a blizzard resulting in saving lives. Ultimately these vehicles were looked at for the ability to rescue folks in natural disaster type situations, floods, blizzards, etc. I'd much rather have my local law enforcement have the tools needed to handle a situation and never need them than wish they had something when all hell broke loose. Rather than scrap these vehicles I personally think this is a better option. No one is going out and requesting rocket launchers, mines, etc to the best of my knowledge. Vehicles and rifles are usually the big requests. Why do we need rifles? Again research the LA bank robbery and tell me why we don't need rifles.

[knapplc]

Isn't there a clause in those contracts that the local PD has to use that equipment within the first year or they lose it?  I think that's why you see stuff like the militarized vehicle that Enhance talked about at the hotel standoff. It may have been overkill for that situation, but it was necessary for other reasons.  Then, when the police actually need it, they have it. 

 

In general I'm not against the police having access to these kinds of weapons/equipment. I understand the concern, and we citizens need to remain vigilant (as in the case of the Oklahoma Police Chief who ran a racist website) but if our police aren't trustworthy with this kind of stuff, then nobody is. 

 

And BRI has a great point about that equipment already being built/paid for by taxpayers.  It does stretch tax dollars.

[knapplc]

50 minutes ago, BIGREDIOWAN said:

Again research the LA bank robbery and tell me why we don't need rifles.

 

I remember when that happened and how amazing it was that the police had to run to a gun shop to get rifles that could properly respond to those gunmen. Crazy, crazy, crazy story.

[StPaulHusker]

It's weird why the NRA would want a "pro-gun" president.  Seems like they profit on fear so why not keep the opposite in power?

[Danny Bateman]

5 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

It's weird why the NRA would want a "pro-gun" president.  Seems like they profit on fear so why not keep the opposite in power?

 

They don't.

 

In a sense, I guess they can try to advocate for more pro-gun legislation. But that just boils down to filling their own pockets anymore.

 

It's rather humorous to watch them in the era of Trump. Their behavior is rather telling. Instead of pursuing pro-2A bills, they're churning out crap like this:

 

 

 

Who exactly is the "they" Loesch is targeting in these spots? I'm confused.