Home› Main Category› Second Amendment/Politics
Big Chief
Senior MemberPosts: 32,995 Senior Member
Obama announces restrictions on distribution of military-style equipment to police
Big Chief
Senior MemberPosts: 32,995 Senior Member
Well, many of us on here complained about the over "Militarization of Police", including yours truly, but I wonder what his objective is here? Was their use too effective against rioters and he wants their use held back until the National Guard is called in?
Or is it Tinfoil Hat Time and he wants to disarm police who may side with civilians when he decides to declare Martial Law? :conehead:
Or is it simply a matter of he finally got something right or half right. I see nothing wrong with bayonets/batons and .50 Cals....................and some of the other stuff that he will make more difficult to obtain for them.
You thoughts please.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/18/obama-announces-restrictions-on-distribution-military-style-equipment-to-police/
"In previewing the president's trip, the White House said that effective immediately, the federal government will no longer fund or provide armored vehicles that run on a tracked system instead of wheels, weaponized aircraft or vehicles, firearms or ammunition of .50-caliber or higher, grenade launchers, bayonets or camouflage uniforms. The federal government also is exploring ways to recall prohibited equipment already distributed.
In addition, a longer list of equipment the federal government provides will come under tighter control, including wheeled armored vehicles like Humvees, manned aircraft, drones, specialized firearms, explosives, battering rams and riot batons, helmets and shields. Starting in October, police will have to get approval from their city council, mayor or some other local governing body to obtain it, provide a persuasive explanation of why it is needed and have more training and data collection on the use of the equipment."
Or is it Tinfoil Hat Time and he wants to disarm police who may side with civilians when he decides to declare Martial Law? :conehead:
Or is it simply a matter of he finally got something right or half right. I see nothing wrong with bayonets/batons and .50 Cals....................and some of the other stuff that he will make more difficult to obtain for them.
You thoughts please.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/05/18/obama-announces-restrictions-on-distribution-military-style-equipment-to-police/
"In previewing the president's trip, the White House said that effective immediately, the federal government will no longer fund or provide armored vehicles that run on a tracked system instead of wheels, weaponized aircraft or vehicles, firearms or ammunition of .50-caliber or higher, grenade launchers, bayonets or camouflage uniforms. The federal government also is exploring ways to recall prohibited equipment already distributed.
In addition, a longer list of equipment the federal government provides will come under tighter control, including wheeled armored vehicles like Humvees, manned aircraft, drones, specialized firearms, explosives, battering rams and riot batons, helmets and shields. Starting in October, police will have to get approval from their city council, mayor or some other local governing body to obtain it, provide a persuasive explanation of why it is needed and have more training and data collection on the use of the equipment."
It's only true if it's on this forum where opinions are facts and facts are opinions
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Words of wisdom from Big Chief: Flush twice, it's a long way to the Mess Hall
I'd rather have my sister work in a whorehouse than own another Taurus!
Replies
And thinking bigger picture: What does this mean for likes of Garands and other firearms that might be sold through the CMP to the public? Such as those 1911's we were just discussing on the general form? Or, to get a little more tin-foil-hatty, what about those that already have been? Crates of 1863 rifle-muskets or 1880's cavalry saddles that are undoubtedly still crated in National Guard armories? Add a buttload of money to the national treasury selling them to collectors or sit on / destroy them because they used to be military items?
I suspect this is yet another ill-conceived political move by Barry O to pander to his supporters in the urban sprawl in the short term, that will have long term negative repercussions.
"Nothing is safe from stupid." - Zee
Ouch! That could be a possibility. Don't know if the Congress would pass a mess like that, though. But they passed O-care and the Patriot Act.
― Douglas Adams
:roll:
Jerry
Welcome, what is this, no such thing in MN that I know of.
No CCW/CHL/CWP in MN ?
Totally in response to the ghetto whiners and commie provocateurs in Ferguson and Baltimore
That's sad ( Even California allows Militia activities & training legally ) too many States to list have Local & Regional Militias these days and Militia is en vogue again ...
- George Orwell
No, but there are 10,000 Chicken Littles sounding false alarms.
A MRAP is nothing special. It's a slightly up-armored APC vehicle with mostly added undercarriage armor installed at angles to deflect the blast of IEDs and small vehicle mines. It's not some urban pacification machine. When a PD pr SO gets one, it's just a body and a engine... no Ma Deuce, no Mk19, no rockets or anything. It's DE-militarized.
This is just more horse crap designed to push a federalized police system. Wait a year...it's coming.
I'm with you on the federal intentions.
But MRAPs? How can anyone defend those dinosaurs?
1. It's my understanding there's a bit of specialized maintenance on them, so as a taxpayer my taxes will be going to pay to take care of these things. Is there a better use for this money? Or will the PD have to lobby for new taxes or cut other services or training/equipment for the officers to keep this sort of stuff going?
2. Does the PD need an armored vehicle? The town of Howey-in-the-Hills has a population of 956. A police chief and 6 officers. Would they need an MRAP in that august community? I can see Tavares, Mt. Dora, Leesburg, the Lake County Sheriff's, or a larger community possibly needing one, but does a smaller department need one? I think that if such a thing is done, the taxpayers need more than a "yes, we need it, believe us" excuse for procurement and the associated maintenance costs.
Edited to add: I also think that, per the article, some other items need to be examined. What use does a PD have for a .50 cal. or higher rifle? What about bayonets? I can actually understand the grenade launcher, as I understand there are less-lethal, smoke, and gas rounds for those. And restrictions on things like batons and riot shields is just... stupid.
Most have been making up for his shortcomings in other areas :jester:
I can't remember which university is was but their campus police received M16s while another received a demiled Humvee. They were not the only schools to receive stuff either.
- George Orwell
Seems like the up armored Humvees would be more useful. Not like a local PD is going to have to deal with IEDs any time soon. And a Humvee doesn't need a stepladder to access the back.
And if the purpose is for riot control, then vehicles with water cannons would probably be more useful to that purpose. All you can do with an MRAP is run over the rioters.
― Douglas Adams
I'll offer this as a comparative:
Police vehicles are relatively low maintenance in a broader sense. They are commonly manufactured Chevy or Ford cars/trucks. Parts-a-plenty. Per car cost is not outrageous and becomes expensive by virtue of the numbers of cars owned by a county/city. One specialized police vehicle may cost a lot to maintain, but it's only one.
Now let's look at the fire department... other than a few cars/trucks for the captains and chiefs, it's all specialized vehicles. Expensive specialized vehicles. Locally here, the county has two ladder trucks in the area that can respond if one of the 4 or 5 buildings here over 10 stories require that equipment.
My city allocated funds to buy a $600,000 ladder truck...state of the art, bells, whistles, you name it. Why? It gets 2mpg of diesel at $3/gal and they drive the thing to pick up LUNCH.
Now...if my department had a surplus up-armored vehicle, it would only be driven for special purposes and fueled occasionally. No one is driving it to lunch AND we could assist nearby agencies with special circumstances. All we have is an old up-armored Chevy 3500 "peacekeeper" somethingorother. It's junk and so are a large majority of severely aging SWAT armored vehicles.
So...free MRAP plus maintenance cost...or...
$250,000 APC plus maintenance cost? We have to replace old crappy equipment sometime...
1. Is there a better use for the money?
2. Where will the money come from?
3. Is the equipment really needed?
As taxpayers, we deserve those answers. Don't deflect with talking about fire departments and trying to throw in the cost of patrol vehicles... they're immaterial to the discussion. Their maintenance and replacement should be figured into the annual budget, barring catastrophic event. Instead for new equipment that can be a potential money sink, those expenditures need to be justified and explained.