I see a problem. Give me one reason LEO's need this.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why does the para-military "look" matter any more than the "evil look" of guns that meet AWB criteria? :confused: I dunno, I have little problem with SWAT teams and such (probably because my dad was on one for a while) because they're still supposed to be trained to protect the public first and foremost. I don't really know if police departments training their officers to see the citizens as enemies is a currently evolving trend or not...

Though I certainly recognize the need to keep that distinction.

"There's a reason you separate the military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." I think that says it best, no?
 
Please tell me you don't believe that we only have the right to what is listed in the constitution... You can check the Ninth Amendment and The Federalist No. 84 before you answer.
Click to expand...

Well familiar with both....are you contending that the government does not have the power to ban or regulate everyday items? :)

I am simply saying that the government has no compelling reason to ban citizens from owning this.
Click to expand...

I never said they did either. I just dont think folks need it, and I have a conceptual problem with folks owning it

Just like all I should need to buy two guns from you is enough money to pay for them. Except it sounds like you would only sell me one since I'm not in a war zone...
Click to expand...

See above...Ill sell ya whatever ya want by the way...I may roll my eyes later when I see ya walking down a suburban street where there hasnt been a crime in 300 years wearing 2 guns, body armor, 3 flashlights etc...:D

I guess the question is:At what point does reasonable efforts towards self defense become mall ninja? Like me owning a Beta C mag...why;)

WildfirepowerAlaska
 
Quote:
Mr. Avereage needs it, to defend himself against a tyranical, abusive government, when disarmed, and at the mercy of a military police force, such as occured in the following countries, resulting in the loss of millions of inncocent lives:

Mr. Wildalasak wrote: Bullpucky....


Mr. Wildalaska:
It is unfortunate you left out the rest of the quote, which went on to read: "the loss of millions of innocent lives, such as:

....Poland, Czechoslovakia, Italy, Russia, East Germany, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, China, Korea, Iraq, Kuwait, or any number of your favorite South American or South African slaughter centers."

Are you saying, that the millions of civilians that died in the above referenced countries “didn’t need" such devices? I bet if they could speak, they would differ with you.
Initially, they weren’t “living in a war zone” until the war came to them. Many tried to flee the war zones, but were captured and killed trying to leave those war zones. I bet they would have loved to had them while they were fleeing.

I cannot understand the point of view that American Citizens don’t need such devices, any more than I could understand, or try to justify telling you, or anyone else, that they don’t need the rights granted under the First Amendment, unless they work as a television reporter, or as a newspaper editor.
 
Wildalaska: Out of curiosity why exactly do you have a problem with people owning body armor? I know that people don't really need it but I don't really need computer games yet I buy them all the time. I don't live in a dangerous area or anything and even when going into Chicago at night I wouldn't bother wearing armor....but if I just find the concept of a suit like that to be really, really cool why would there be an issue with me buying it?
 
Out of curiosity why exactly do you have a problem with people owning body armor?
Click to expand...

You answered your own question

I know that people don't really need it
Click to expand...
but if I just find the concept of a suit like that to be really, really cool
Click to expand...

I conceptually try to draw the lines between cool toys that perform a function and those that dont

Wildnija*poof*Alaska
 
WildthatsigcracksmeupAlaska
Click to expand...
Thank psycho nut. :D

But you didn't answer my original question. Whats wrong with being a mall ninja?

I conceptually try to draw the lines between cool toys that perform a function and those that dont
Click to expand...
So if a cool toy doen't preform a function it's not OK to have? Or is it the other way, and if it does have a function it's not OK?
 
WildAlaska said:
I have a conceptual problem with folks owning it
Click to expand...
And so we have arrived at that pivotal point in American History, where the dominating issues are not control of the Government; nor Constitutional intent; nor even rights of a Free People to puchase what they choose so long as it harms no one else..

Nope, the dominant question is whether we have a "conceptual problem" with such ownership. Gungrabbers and other NannyStatist groups, the world over, are ROTFLTAO. :rolleyes:
Rich
 
I conceptually try to draw the lines between cool toys that perform a function and those that dont

Wildnija*poof*Alaska
Click to expand...

I have a 240SX in my garage that I'm preparing to load up with a V8. It's not going to get me to work or even to run errands because it won't be road legal (I'll be towing it to the track). It's a cool toy but technically serves no function other than to satisfy my own enjoyment. Why is that different?
 
Its function is racing...a sport...like my badminton racket has a function.

Owning a RoboCop suit I suspect will be characterized by either:

A. Collectors who collect that type of stuff (OK I reckon)
B. mall ninjas in the classic sense (gettin psychologically suspect or at least the subject of derision)
c. Criminals (not OK)
D. The hard core anti government crowd (see B, above)
E.. Folks who go in harms way (OK)

I have conceptual problems with many items...How bout an SS uniform...isnt it different between a collector and one who parades around in one..... Let me turn it around, do you have a prob with B and D above?

And so we have arrived at that pivotal point in American History, where the dominating issues are not control of the Government; nor Constitutional intent; nor even rights of a Free People to puchase what they choose so long as it harms no one else..Nope, the dominant question is whether we have a "conceptual problem" with such ownership
Click to expand...

I have a conceptual problem with hard core porn..care to comment on that one in light of the 1st?

WildhastheflusobadheisfallinoffhischairAlaska
 
Originally posted by MRex21

What was it?
Click to expand...

While doing a surveillance in a residential neighborhood about 5 years ago..

The Chief of Police (wearing paramilitary gear) of this small town responded to a "suspicious vehicle report" by a neighbor. This is common, no problem. I presented the Choef with my ID and credentials (including my authorization to carry concealed issued by the Attorney General). The Chief called me out of my truck at gun point, made me assume "the position", hit me in the head with his flashlight, hand cuffed me, disarmed me, booked me into jail for "obstructing official duty. I did nothing wrong.

The Chief claimed "Officer Safety" as his reason for doing this.

The chief was fired 2 weeks later, my case was dismissed. I filed a civil rights suit against the Chief. The City paid me a 5 figure apology about 1 1/2 yrs later.

I have had far more experiences with good LEOs than bad. This is why I state SOME officers ruin the "Officer Safety" claim for all.

By Redworm

Why does the para-military "look" matter any more than the "evil look" of guns that meet AWB criteria?
Click to expand...

By Pipoman

There has been some debate about weather LE clad in para military gear violates the Posse Comitatus Act. I see street LEOs wearing parachute pants etc looking like military special forces. Using appropriate gear in a riot/street war scenario is understandable. A rookie LEO wearing paramilitary gear, I believe, emboldens him/her to believe their role extends beyond what their day to day role really is.
Click to expand...
 
that makes sense but how often is a typical patrol officer seen wearing that kind of equipment? I thought it was only used for SWAT teams and the like :confused: though I do agree, I wouldn't want to see a cop decked out in full insertion gear while pulling someone over
 
Owning a RoboCop suit I suspect will be characterized by either:

A. Collectors who collect that type of stuff (OK I reckon)
B. mall ninjas in the classic sense (gettin psychologically suspect or at least the subject of derision)
c. Criminals (not OK)
D. The hard core anti government crowd (see B, above)
E.. Folks who go in harms way (OK)
Click to expand...
This is the logical fallacy of the false dillemma. One the one side you have criminals/psychos/militants (all bad) and on the other are cops/collectors (either good or harmless). You are leaving out the middle ground, which is comprised of ordinary joes, who just want a suite of body armor, perhaps for good reasons, or for no real reason at all.

Its function is racing...a sport...like my badminton racket has a function.
Click to expand...
Yup. And body armor has a function too. Keeping foreign objects out of my torso.

I have a conceptual problem with hard core porn..
Click to expand...
Since when does body armor = porn?
 
WildAK-
As much a Constitutional Scholar as you are, sometimes you take my breath away.

See, the purpose of this little experiment called America was not to come to collective agreement on what we can and cannot own, how we dress in public or what we view in our homes. The purpose was quite the opposite; to guarantee Individuals the Right to act as Individuals without outside interference, so long as they were harming no one else.

When you start to make value judgments on some guy, minding his own business, while carrying two guns and three lights, you open yourself up to arguments by those who would question why you "need to own" even ONE gun. Guess what? They're in the majority and the only thing that keeps them (relatively) at bay is the Constitution and your willingness to "live and let live".

I don't need to give you any "explanation" as to my "need" to own anything unless it interferes with or harms another. Hard Core Porn? It requires an entire industry of illegal activities from Slavery to Murder.

Body Armor, on the other hand, hurts no one. I wouldn't own one of these suits; but I'd hardly support legislation that would make them LEO Only items. Know why? Because my car, gun, aircraft, motorcycle or hunting pursuits are likely to be next.
Rich
 
WildAlaska said:
...are you contending that the government does not have the power to ban or regulate everyday items?
Click to expand...
Yes I am; U.S. Constitution Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3 notwithstanding. ;)

I contend, like my ol' buddy Al Hamilton (again, in Federalist #84), that the government has only the power that we, the people, delegate to it; and that the enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?
Click to expand...
 
I think I would like the new gear in case I meet some of the nuts on this thread. Close it.

Hate is not debate.

Funny what the staff decides is and is not worthy. But its their site I guess.
 
Last edited:
pipoman said:
While doing a surveillance in a residential neighborhood about 5 years ago..

The Chief of Police (wearing paramilitary gear) of this small town responded to a "suspicious vehicle report" by a neighbor. This is common, no problem. I presented the Choef with my ID and credentials (including my authorization to carry concealed issued by the Attorney General). The Chief called me out of my truck at gun point, made me assume "the position", hit me in the head with his flashlight, hand cuffed me, disarmed me, booked me into jail for "obstructing official duty. I did nothing wrong.

The Chief claimed "Officer Safety" as his reason for doing this.

The chief was fired 2 weeks later, my case was dismissed. I filed a civil rights suit against the Chief. The City paid me a 5 figure apology about 1 1/2 yrs later.

I have had far more experiences with good LEOs than bad. This is why I state SOME officers ruin the "Officer Safety" claim for all.
Click to expand...

Ah, gotcha. I can see how that situation would sour one's outlook. It sounds like the 'Police Chief' was a bit of an ass. Good for you for holding his (and the city's) feet to the fire.

I do see your point on the uniform thing. When I worked for a local department we used 'Blaur Streetgear' (IIRC) for our 'secondary uniform'. It was cut similar to utilities, but presented a more professional appearance somewhere between BDU's and the full dress uniform. Plus, it was just plain more comfortable to work in.
 
Oh...Wildcard...I have one easy question for you. Why do you want officers to be killed? Sounds like you are prejudiced against one specific class of 'citizens'. Interesting. How do you feel about blacks, or gays...or females, for that matter?/QUOTE]

I never said I wanted cops to die. You are as bad as the gun grabbers. I am not prejudiced against any group you mentioned (I guess you learned that tactic to inflame or switch the arguement to another topic from the liberal left).

You know...now I'm curious as well. What is your specific LE background, and why are you so afraid to reveal it?
Click to expand...

I am not afraid to reveal it. I dont have to reveal it, I dont have to state my background. Is that plain enough for you.

When Cops start looking and acting like they are regular Army, which in some cases today they are, the citizens will suffer. The SWAT look started in the 70's, really got going in the 80's and 90's. SWAT officers wearing Army fatigues, BDU's and such. Everbody was ok, SWAT needed that. Today, well actually a week ago, I got pulled over for speeding, which I was guilty of, the officer who pulled me over, on traffic patrol, was wearing BDU's, LBE of some kind, and had his glock on a thigh rig. What is wrong with that picture?
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top