Obama will restrict grenade launchers and other military equipment from local police
95 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47752680]That's what they use grenade launchers for. They get the tear gas and smoke cannisters for them[/QUOTE]
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Loading_M203.JPEG[/t]
i think they're restricting something like these, the other ones are gas grenade launchers which cannot be used to fire anything other than gas grenades
Meanwhile in the UK:
[url]http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/pictured-two-armed-policemen-casually-5689440[/url]
[QUOTE=Sableye;47752857]idk the idea that police can justify bayonets is worse, theres not really anything you can use them for other than stabbing people[/QUOTE]
They're knives that just happen to be capable of mounting onto guns, you can use them for anything else you'd use a knife of that size, chances are if any cops were actually getting bayonets they were just getting them as cheap utility knives.
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47752601]Jesus christ, bayonets. I'm sorry the last time I checked police were here to Protect and Serve not die for the Emperor.[/QUOTE]
I had a mental image of a bunch of hooligans and the police engaged in trench warfare in Detroit.
"All right lads. Those thugs have gone to far. It's time to send them back to that dilapidated apartment from whence they came. Attach you're bayonets boys, we're going over the top."
It's pretty sad that this is cause for celebration, but I guess that shows just how bad the police situation has gotten here
Still, a move in the right direction
[QUOTE=Sableye;47752870][t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/06/Loading_M203.JPEG[/t]
i think they're restricting something like these, the other ones are gas grenade launchers which cannot be used to fire anything other than gas grenades[/QUOTE]
You can still fire tear gas and other non-lethals from under-barrel launchers.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47753024]You can still fire tear gas and other non-lethals from under-barrel launchers.[/QUOTE]
That is an m203, if the image name is to be trusted, a device designed to fire lethal munitions rather than non-lethal. A great example of a 40mm grenade launcher.
What most use for gas dispersal is a 37mm launcher, which a 40mm grenade will not fit in.
This is such a non-move, its an empty baseless gesture to address a problem that didnt exist.
Take a look at that list for a minute. The only thing police have actually employed on that list are camouflage uniforms.
Tracked vehicles aren't used, bayonets are never used, firearms of .50 caliber are never used, grenade launchers will be circumvented on technicality since explosives are never used, and weaponized aircraft has NEVER been used.
People might clap like trained seals and praise obama, but hes essentially done sweet fuck all to change how police operate. They will still be doing raids with AR15s, plate carriers, flashbangs, tear gas and riding in armored vehicles, doing no knock raids, aggressive patrolling, etc etc the list goes on and on.
Absolutely nothing.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47753051]That is an m203, if the image name is to be trusted, a device designed to fire lethal munitions rather than non-lethal. A great example of a 40mm grenade launcher.
What most use for gas dispersal is a 37mm launcher, which a 40mm grenade will not fit in.[/QUOTE]
There are M203 compatible 40mm grenades that are smoke, teargas, even less-lethal pellets.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47752726]What ever shall law enforcement do without their tracked vehicles, weaponized airplanes, .50cal guns, and camouflage...
Oh.. wait... no one has that shit to begin with. This doesnt change anything. Its all a political stunt. The feds dont have the power to do any real changes to law enforcement[/QUOTE]
beat me to it
so the first thing of note is that police units can still privately buy this stuff, which completely negates any possible effect it could have had.
"The banned list includes: tank-like armored vehicles that move on tracks, certain types of camouflage uniforms, bayonets, firearms and ammunition of .50 caliber or higher, grenade launchers, and weaponized aircraft."
okay, so they banned surplus m113s, a vietnam era apc known for being a rolling coffin that can be penetrated by even small arms. it is rarely ever purchased because mraps are superior in literally every way. i think i found only two examples of them being used by police.
certain types of camouflage. this might be the stupidest thing to ban.
wait, no, bayonets are.
.50s are so uncommonly used by police that they dont need one. in th event they do need one, they can easliy get a single shot .50 for cheap privately. or just not use a .50. there are many other rounds that perform similarly
police dont use 40mm military grenade launchers, they use civilian market 37mm flare/gas launchers.
the only thing i can find about weaponized aircraft being purchased is that miami bought 8 apaches. police dont really need apache attack helicopters and you cant really buy those on a civilian market so... i guess this is good? but they appear to not really exist in police hands except for miami or maybe somewhere in texas?
so all in all the most useless laws ever made.
[QUOTE=deadoon;47753051]That is an m203, if the image name is to be trusted, a device designed to fire lethal munitions rather than non-lethal. A great example of a 40mm grenade launcher.
What most use for gas dispersal is a 37mm launcher, which a 40mm grenade will not fit in.[/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.condornaoletal.com.br/eng/produtos.php[/url]
There are non-lethal munitions for the 40mm.
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47753097][url]http://www.condornaoletal.com.br/eng/produtos.php[/url]
There are non-lethal munitions for the 40mm.[/QUOTE]
but they dont even have 40mm launchers, they use 37. so its a moot point.
Too many people focus on the equipment and not the tactics. I don't care if the police have Browning M2-Equipped Humvees and RPGs as long as only use them in a situation that would absolutely require them.
[QUOTE=Starlight 456;47753182]Too many people focus on the equipment and not the tactics. I don't care if the police have Browning M2-Equipped Humvees and RPGs as long as only use them in a situation that would absolutely require them.[/QUOTE]
I think there's a certain value in police not having a significant advantage in terms of equipment over the civilian population as that equipment makes it easier to be of the view the police are there to enforce the law, to be "above" the people, rather than to be there to protect, or rather, help the community. There is a balance though, as the police do need an edge in training and equipment as they don't have numbers.
Also, no, the police don't need a HMG or a rocket launcher; besides how incredibly rare it is for the police to face anything even remotely close to a threat requiring a HMG, let alone a rocket launcher (making having, maintaining, and training personnel in the use of such equipment a massive waste of money), they are still a police force and there is a line when they do actually turn into a military of sorts; having light armored vehicles (for defensive purposes) and camo-pants isn't that line though.
I do agree with your general point though; it is all about training. The national guard was recently called in to two separate riots. They have what most would call full military gear and equipment, but they acted like a policing force rather than a military, because that is one of the things they are trained to respond to and deal with.
When was the last time any PD misused any of these types of things? I've never heard of police bayonetting at traffic stops, blowing up buildings things with a grenade launcher, driving around in armored vehicles or aircraft unwarranted, using .50s on people, etc. (I've only heard of them being used to shoot out the engines on smuggling boats by a very small amount of marine units and I can't really see how you're against than unless you're a total idiot tbh)
And a ban on camouflage? Useless as it is to a PD, banning something because it looks spooky? Jesus Christ.
They'll get these things if they need them anyway, by not letting them buy them from the military at a discount you'll just end up costing taxpayers more money for literally no reason.
This seems like its an even bigger non issue than most of they "muh militarization" bullshit and nothing that will actually have any effect on, well, anything. Just feel good legislation that the manpower of which could be put to better use as long as they did something greater than or equal to changing the trash at the courthouse.
While I agree with most of this I think that cops should be able to have access to .50 caliber sniper rifles.
I remember more than a few situations in which they came in handy and prevented a lot of damage.
Plus I mean any fucking civilian can own a .50 sniper if they have enough money for it.
[editline]18th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silence I Kill You;47752680]That's what they use grenade launchers for. They get the tear gas and smoke cannisters for them[/QUOTE]
Also beanbag rounds if I'm not mistaken.
[QUOTE=Sableye;47752857]idk the idea that police can justify bayonets is worse, theres not really anything you can use them for other than stabbing people[/QUOTE]
Except they never had to justify bayonets, [B]because they dont use them[/B]
You're falling for the sleight of hand. This is political stunt nothing more. It makes Obama look like hes doing something when in fact its nothing.
None of these things besides camoflage uniforms are actually employed by police. [B]this changes nothing[/B]
[QUOTE=deadoon;47752765]Did you even read the OP? They aren't preventing police from buying these things themselves, they are just making it so they cannot request these from the government for free/low prices.[/QUOTE]
So in that case. This actually makes it cost the tax payer more. Since they can't get them for discounted prices or free. This doesn't help anyone then. Only hurts everyone.
It doesn't stop the police from getting this stuff. So it just ends up making stuff more expensive for the departments.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47752726]What ever shall law enforcement do without their tracked vehicles, weaponized airplanes, .50cal guns, and camouflage...
Oh.. wait... no one has that shit to begin with. This doesnt change anything. Its all a political stunt. The feds dont have the power to do any real changes to law enforcement[/QUOTE]
hi im roflburger your local liberal
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A[/media]
[QUOTE=Zillamaster55;47752601]Jesus christ, bayonets. I'm sorry the last time I checked police were here to Protect and Serve not die for the Emperor.[/QUOTE]
I thought is was suspicious when my local PD renamed themselves "Adeptes Arbites, McLean, Virginia Division."
I don't know of any PD that uses Bayonets. A small handful use shitty M113's, but most use MRAPs and Bears, and rightfully should. They mainly use 37mm launchers, which civilians can buy as well, granted we don't get the same shells they do. We only get smoke and flare rounds, they can get bean bags, foam projectiles, and gas rounds. SWAT uses camo, why is some special cops having surplus camo a bad thing? 50 cals aren't exactly used, and if they are, it's usually for a good reason. As for weaponised aircraft, I can't find proof they did use any. Even the Miami PD Apache story was found out to be sorta untrue.
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47753629]hi im roflburger your local liberal
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUdHIatS36A[/media][/QUOTE]
I lost all credibility for this guy after his Civil Forfeiture. And if anyone mentions Sheriff Arpaio then they're stupid.
I'd also like to be convinced that local law enforcement isnt the first line of defense when it comes to terrorism attacks.
Just class local/state police departments as militias, federalize them like they did with the National Guard and give them federal-level training and oversight.
This is a training and oversight problem, not an equipment one.
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47753832]I lost all credibility for this guy after his Civil Forfeiture. And if anyone mentions Sheriff Arpaio then they're stupid.
I'd also like to be convinced that local law enforcement isnt the first line of defense when it comes to terrorism attacks.[/QUOTE]
what did john do wrong with it
[QUOTE=ROFLBURGER;47753936]what did john do wrong with it[/QUOTE]
I'll leave at this: Civil forfeiture is the least of your concerns with your money. Unless you're slinging/buying/moving/growing dope, its not going to be taken.
If this CF is a concern of yours, and you aren't involved with drugs, then you probably should stop drinking the koolaid and take off the foil.
[editline]18th May 2015[/editline]
I've only seen it used once. Ever. And it was for a felony marijuana trafficking. I'm not talking a pound of weed.. I'm talking [I]pounds[/I] of weed.
And they only took his car. In which they sold back to him.
I would support a federal bill that would standardize all police departments.
All the same cars.
All the same gear.
All the same guns.
All the same rules.
All the same internal investigative services.
All with body cams.
I've come to loathe how police act in most states, and after dealing with some really negative experiences, I've come to distrust most police as well.
[QUOTE=dilzinyomouth;47753568]Except they never had to justify bayonets, [B]because they dont use them[/B]
You're falling for the sleight of hand. This is political stunt nothing more. It makes Obama look like hes doing something when in fact its nothing.
None of these things besides camoflage uniforms are actually employed by police. [B]this changes nothing[/B][/QUOTE]
Except the big city police departments are getting them, wasting tax payer dollars maintaining them, and then deploying their officers who are not trained on how to appropriately use them whenever something the national guard should be deployed for pops up.
[editline]19th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=gjsdeath;47753608]So in that case. This actually makes it cost the tax payer more. Since they can't get them for discounted prices or free. This doesn't help anyone then. Only hurts everyone.
It doesn't stop the police from getting this stuff. So it just ends up making stuff more expensive for the departments.[/QUOTE]
Police departments won't actually spend the money to buy this stuff if they can't get it for free, they certainly didn't in the decades they could have done it, they gladly use it when its free but they won't buy it when they have to answer for their purchases so it makes the cops more accountable and aware of their own needs
[editline]19th May 2015[/editline]
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47753832]I lost all credibility for this guy after his Civil Forfeiture. And if anyone mentions Sheriff Arpaio then they're stupid.
I'd also like to be convinced that local law enforcement isnt the first line of defense when it comes to terrorism attacks.[/QUOTE]
Very much depends on what you justify as a terrorist attack, if its a bunch of guys with bombs or chemical weapons or hijacking planes then I'd rather the FBI/CIA/any other counter-terrorism unit, if its a couple guys with guns storming a building then yes cops can stop them but thats no different from some crazy person shooting up a place anyways
And when the zombie outbreak starts and our cops have no bayonets to defend themselves at close range, WHAT THEN OBAMA?
WHAT THEN?
[QUOTE=Code3Response;47752726]What ever shall law enforcement do without their [B]tracked vehicles[/B], weaponized airplanes, .50cal guns, and camouflage...
Oh.. wait... [B]no one has that shit to begin with[/B]. This doesnt change anything. Its all a political stunt. The feds dont have the power to do any real changes to law enforcement[/QUOTE]
See, you say that
[IMG]http://endthelie.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/03/Solano-sheriff-tank.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v218/baumgar/ArpaioHowitzer.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://denverandmore.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/tampa-police-tank.jpg[/IMG]
Yeah, about that.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.