It's illegal to use the military against citizens

[JP171]

Mojo, they don't have any on order and there are unfortunately hundreds of the MRAP vehicles of several types no longer being used or supported by military units. they are no cost for procurement by the departments that are given them. one thing I dislike is that they may be used inappropriately I wish like crazy that we at the state guard could get some of them but the law doesn't allow that

[texanjoker]

How in the world can you guys keep saying it was free?

Because it doesn't cost the dept anything. Sure the military spent a ton of money , the war was bad, blah blah blah. Right now tho they are sitting around not being used because we got out of iraq. So we have a police dept that can buy a bearcat that is designed for police at about $250,000 or can apply for a surplus MRAP that they get at no cost to them. The MRAP is, I'm sure, a bit much, but while it may have a ton of features the cops don't need and wouldn't pay for it still covers the criteria they do need.

And by the way why would anyone care except they look scary? They are not tanks. There are no machine guns or cannons on these vehicles. What will they do with them that you are so worried about? They are defensive vehicles and were never meant to be defensive weapons. The major "military" aspect of their design is the mine resistance and while unnecessary who is going to get worked up over that? How are the cops going to oppress us with a vehicle that resist mines? No real defensive capabilities but it's hard to blow up, those totalitarians!!!

Just some thoughts:

These unarmed vehicles "look scary" sounds like a statement from Diane Feinstein on assault weapons . If they look so scary why not waste more $$ and paint them black and white or pink? When you are hunkered down with gun fire I want the vehicle to scare the heck outta the guy shooting at us. Since the military is downsizing and unloading vehicles that sit around, why not use them? They will be staged where the rest of the command vehicles/swat vehicles are and deploy on swat missions.

Carrying spare shot gun barrels? Having proper keep it simple equipment is the correct thing to do. The same semi auto AR the public has have proven their value in patrol environments.

Do you know why they had to go looking for rifles?

Policy prevented them from having rifles in the patrol cars. It was only after that battle policy was changed and rifles were issued to patrol officers.

Lacking a rifle, only having a pistol and shotgun, a long barrel and slugs might have saved a few lives while officers were shopping at Academy or the nearest pawn shop.

This thing does not belong on the streets with “POLICE” on the door, even if is “free”. This is not a war zone and any officer that is convinced it is, should take off the badge. It would be better for him/her and the citizens.

It seems every government department has a SWAT team or equivalent now, even the USDA. It is happening slowly, one small step at a time. The scary part is that a lot of people don’t see these changes and when they do, they write it off as ”what is everyone worried about?”, This is no threat.

I agree with mojo84 “If cops want to play army, that's up to them. I am against it and think they should join the military if that is what they want.”

Here is where it gets complicated. It’s not so much the vehicle people oppose, it is the mentality of a lot of agents, the “us against them” mindset.

The big question is how we can stop and reverse the trend

Yeah I think somewhere in this thread I posted about the rifles and that they had 600 shortly after plus were allowed optional hand gun calibers other then 9mm.

Take off the badge for having a different view then you? That comment is pretty lame

End of discussion

[VoiceofReason]

How in the world can you guys keep saying it was free?

Because it doesn't cost the dept anything. Sure the military spent a ton of money , the war was bad, blah blah blah. Right now tho they are sitting around not being used because we got out of iraq. So we have a police dept that can buy a bearcat that is designed for police at about $250,000 or can apply for a surplus MRAP that they get at no cost to them. The MRAP is, I'm sure, a bit much, but while it may have a ton of features the cops don't need and wouldn't pay for it still covers the criteria they do need.

And by the way why would anyone care except they look scary? They are not tanks. There are no machine guns or cannons on these vehicles. What will they do with them that you are so worried about? They are defensive vehicles and were never meant to be defensive weapons. The major "military" aspect of their design is the mine resistance and while unnecessary who is going to get worked up over that? How are the cops going to oppress us with a vehicle that resist mines? No real defensive capabilities but it's hard to blow up, those totalitarians!!!

Just some thoughts:

These unarmed vehicles "look scary" sounds like a statement from Diane Feinstein on assault weapons . If they look so scary why not waste more $$ and paint them black and white or pink? When you are hunkered down with gun fire I want the vehicle to scare the heck outta the guy shooting at us. Since the military is downsizing and unloading vehicles that sit around, why not use them? They will be staged where the rest of the command vehicles/swat vehicles are and deploy on swat missions.

Carrying spare shot gun barrels? Having proper keep it simple equipment is the correct thing to do. The same semi auto AR the public has have proven their value in patrol environments.

Do you know why they had to go looking for rifles?

Policy prevented them from having rifles in the patrol cars. It was only after that battle policy was changed and rifles were issued to patrol officers.

Lacking a rifle, only having a pistol and shotgun, a long barrel and slugs might have saved a few lives while officers were shopping at Academy or the nearest pawn shop.

This thing does not belong on the streets with “POLICE” on the door, even if is “free”. This is not a war zone and any officer that is convinced it is, should take off the badge. It would be better for him/her and the citizens.

It seems every government department has a SWAT team or equivalent now, even the USDA. It is happening slowly, one small step at a time. The scary part is that a lot of people don’t see these changes and when they do, they write it off as ”what is everyone worried about?”, This is no threat.

I agree with mojo84 “If cops want to play army, that's up to them. I am against it and think they should join the military if that is what they want.”

Here is where it gets complicated. It’s not so much the vehicle people oppose, it is the mentality of a lot of agents, the “us against them” mindset.

The big question is how we can stop and reverse the trend

Yeah I think somewhere in this thread I posted about the rifles and that they had 600 shortly after plus were allowed optional hand gun calibers other then 9mm.

Take off the badge for having a different view then you? That comment is pretty lame

End of discussion

I did not say he/she should Take off the badge for having a different view than me.

Read it again. “This is not a war zone and any officer that is convinced it is, should take off the badge. It would be better for him/her and the citizens.”

[E.Marquez]

I did not say he/she should Take off the badge for having a different view than me.

Read it again. “This is not a war zone and any officer that is convinced it is, should take off the badge. It would be better for him/her and the citizens.”

That was rather disingenuous of you seems you forgot to quote ALL of what YOU wrote that texanjoker responded to Here let me help you out.

This thing does not belong on the streets with “POLICE” on the door, even if is “free”. This is not a war zone and any officer that is convinced it is, should take off the badge. It would be better for him/her and the citizens.

So when you READ the entire thing YOU wrote.. it is much different than the cherry picked part you picked out and attempt to defend now..

[MadMonkey]

This thing does not belong on the streets with “POLICE” on the door, even if is “free”. This is not a war zone and any officer that is convinced it is, should take off the badge. It would be better for him/her and the citizens.

So when you READ the entire thing YOU wrote.. it is much different than the cherry picked part you picked out and attempt to defend now..

I don't see an issue with that statement.

It's a slippery slope. We need armored vehicles... for our safety. We need machine guns... for our safety. We need a CROWS turret on top of the vehicle... for our safety. Heck, we'll use a UAV to take out that suspect, that way we won't have to be in any danger.

I'm not even 30 and I remember when the majority of police officers were friendly, and you could actually get to know them. It wasn't long ago (less than 10 years) that I could see a distinct shift to an "us vs. them" mindset... I even knew one cop who refused to shake hands or even hug his little girl before he left home because he believed that nobody should touch him when he was in uniform

[E.Marquez]

It's a slippery slope. We need armored vehicles... for our safety. We need machine guns... for our safety. We need a CROWS turret on top of the vehicle... for our safety. Heck, we'll use a UAV to take out that suspect, that way we won't have to be in any danger.

or ???:

Well first of all..... That's not what has been done, requested, provided.. So yes, you and others can fill the discussion with opinions of what some day might happen,, but the fact remains,, that's not what has happened and some here are so against,

What has happened,,, officer are placed in active shooter events with a very real need to enter the targeted area under fire.
Surplus military vehicles that can withstand small arms fire likely to be encountered by law enforcement has been made available to departments.... Some here want to refuse these vehicles to the departments because they are scary ...

Just like many want to refuse you the right to a gun at all, never mind the right to carry it loaded...

[VMI77]

If only it was a "safe vehicle" that was being discussed. You are not seeing the big picture.

Just curious, how many police vehicles have been blown up by running over an IED or encountered an rpg or taken .50 cal fire?

Actually that IS what this thread was discussing before a few blew it out of proportion.

So, miliarized the police. This is just what every police department needs. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/09 ... g-threats/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I find it concerning the feds gave them this.

Let me ask you a question... If your mother, daughter or wife was shot and trapped by an active shooter.. would you request the police not use the most secure vehicle they had available to rescue her because of your personal belief that no law enforcement agency "needs" or should have such a vehicle?

Department has.. NO bullet resistant vehicle department is offered an excess military vehicle that is bullet resistant... Your stated position is they should turn down that offered vehicle ?

You're playing the hypothetical game, and in that game, anything can be justified. The problem I see with this isn't that some police departments have armored vehicles, it's that so many have them. The quantity of deployments is now beginning to look like staging and forward placement. So to me, the problem isn't that these vehicles are available to law enforcement under current conditions, but what the landscape looks like when conditions continue to deteriorate: widespread availability of these vehicles can be very quickly turned into oppression. You want to use the anti-gun analogy....well, you don't trust the libs to stop trying to ban guns do you? The price of liberty is eternal vigilance. These are exactly the kind of vehicles that would be used to attack gun owners should confiscation ever come to pass, and their existence changes the calculus of confiscation. It's a lot easier to go around confiscating guns, or whatever, when these vehicles are everywhere, than when they are not. The ease with which something can be done often makes it tempting enough to do it. And while I think confiscation may be unlikely under current conditions, economic collapse is increasingly probable, and if that happens, they''re not going to be using these just to confiscate guns.

[G0C]

Some of the arguments remind me of philosophy class. "If you knew a baby was going to grow up to be a terrorist, is it ethical to kill the baby?"

[VMI77]

Some of the arguments remind me of philosophy class. "If you knew a baby was going to grow up to be a terrorist, is it ethical to kill the baby?"

Really? In an actual college? That's a pretty silly question since it doesn't allow any possibility of meaningful discussion. In the first place, even if it were possible to "know" this about a baby, the question is unanswerable without a precise definition of "terrorist," AND specific knowledge of his actions as a terrorist. The libs call Ted Cruz a "terrorist." But aside from the definitional problem, you don't know and can't know what will happen in the future, so in the real world outside academia, the answer is obviously no. It's kinda like asking if it's ok to kill a unicorn.

[E.Marquez]

You're playing the hypothetical game, and in that game, anything can be justified.

Your post was satire or sarcasm yes?

Did you really just imply my position and opinion is invalid because it was "hypothetical " and in your same response you post

The problem I see with this isn't that some police departments have armored vehicles, it's that so many have them. The quantity of deployments is now beginning to look like staging and forward placement. So to me, the problem isn't that these vehicles are available to law enforcement under current conditions, but what the landscape looks like when conditions continue to deteriorate:

no reasonable discussion with you is possible at this point.. Carry on.

[VMI77]

You're playing the hypothetical game, and in that game, anything can be justified.

Your post was satire or sarcasm yes?

Did you really just imply my position and opinion is invalid because it was "hypothetical " and in your same response you post

The problem I see with this isn't that some police departments have armored vehicles, it's that so many have them. The quantity of deployments is now beginning to look like staging and forward placement. So to me, the problem isn't that these vehicles are available to law enforcement under current conditions, but what the landscape looks like when conditions continue to deteriorate:

no reasonable discussion with you is possible at this point.. Carry on.

Yeah, it kinda comes off that way, but I think it's a tad different. For example, the 2nd Amendment was intended to serve as a last resort check on government power. The Founders also anticipated that certain government actions would facilitate the government abuse of power and so attempted to prohibit such conditions from coming about in the first place. You can call that a hypothetical, and it is, but it's not quite the same thing as justifying X on the basis that Y can happen; it's an expectation based on the facts of history that governments always increase their power and always end up abusing the populace. The progs say we don't need the 2nd Amendment because our government would never oppress it's citizens.

But we no longer have a Federal government we can trust. I was sort of forced to watch The Messiah's speech yesterday while getting new tires, and I exaggerate not a bit when I say that everything he said was a lie. We have an administration that doesn't mind killing innocent people if they can get away with it and make a political point. But even if this administration takes no oppressive action, those vehicles are still going to be around for the next bunch in power....and no doubt a lot more of them then there are now. It's going to be mighty tempting for the kind of government we're now growing to eventually use them against the people. So, whether it is designed pre-positioning, of just pre-positioning by default, those vehicles are still going to be around and subject to use for nefarious purposes.

But hey, I'm just too unreasonable to even talk to, so carry on.

[mojo84]

Why not put them up for auction and sell them on the open market so they can recoup some of the billions spent on them?

[JP171]

they will do just that in time, it has to go thru several agencies and layers of congress, I do think that they should be sold but not to foreign interests EVER! it does make me question the need for local law enforcement needing them, I know sometimes the poo hits the fan but not really sure it justifies the use of medium/light armored vehicles.


I would like to see the Gubbermint give them to state defense forces along with a little bit of money to maintain them for disaster response, not for the armor but for the toughness and utility. They have enough money to support whole governments in foreign countries they can afford to give us a bit

[mojo84]

I bet a lot of rich folks and preppera would pay quite a lot foe them. Just think about when they sold Hummers to the mere citizenry.

[Cletus]

It's kinda like asking if it's ok to kill a unicorn.

Go ahead. No bag limit. No closed season.