It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Obama: "Weapons of war have no place on our streets".

page: 2
84
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: lambchop
I think this is a result of your gun loving mentality, the cops also want the latest, biggest guns too. If i was a police officer in America, I would also want to be in cursing in an armored truck, wearing the latest body armor knowing that there are a large number of lunatics with high powered assault rifles and crates of ammunition they all bought on the internet or their local toy shop.


" high powered assault rifles"
There's that nonsensical fear mongering phrase again..




posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:52 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Have to keep those proles under control.

The emperor has spoken.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 07:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: lambchop
I think this is a result of your gun loving mentality, the cops also want the latest, biggest guns too. If i was a police officer in America, I would also want to be in cursing in an armored truck, wearing the latest body armor knowing that there are a large number of lunatics with high powered assault rifles and crates of ammunition they all bought on the internet or their local toy shop.


Assault rifles are actually low powered,high powered rifles are big game rifles,usually bolt action.
Where in the heck do you get your nonsensical information from?Comic books?



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:15 PM
link   

edit on 22-6-2014 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: lonegurkha



" Obama said. "We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."


Isn't that what the National Guard once was,before a certian president made them a part of the Armed forces? I seem to remember that they were refered to as citizen soldiers. Now they are used as if they are regular army.


You were referring to President Lyndon B Johnson (D) during Viet Nam, correct? Just FYI here is a list of National Guard Units that served in Viet Nam:




1. Four (4) US Air National Guard F-100 Super Sabre Squadrons deployed to South Vietnam and flew approximately 30,000 combat sorties:
A. Colorado Air National Guard 120th Tactical Fighter Squadron (TFS)
B. New Mexico Air National Guard 188th TFS
C. Iowa Air National Guard 174th TFS
D. New York Air National Guard l38th TFS
2. Eight (8) US Army National Guard (ARNG) units deployed to South Vietnam; more than 7,000 US Guardsmen served in country (Republic of South Vietnam); 97 fell in battle.
A. Alabama ARNG 650th Medical Detachment
B. Idaho ARNG 116th Engineer Bn
C. Illinois ARNG 126th Supply Co
D. Indiana ARNG "D", 151st Infantry (LRRP); the only Guard ground maneuver unit in Vietnam. 151st suffered 2 men KIA and over 100 men wounded.
E. Kentucky ARNG 2/138th Field Artillery
F. New Hampshire ARNG 3/197th Field Artillery
G. Rhode Island ARNG 107th Signal Co
H. Vermont ARNG 131st Engineer Co
This list does NOT include USAR (US Army Reserve units/US Air Force Reserve units nor US Navy, US Coast Guard, US Marine Corps units).
USAR-Strictly federal (not state) and as a general rule they (during Vietnam) supplied men only; no war machines...tanks, trucks, artillery, etc. USAR were generally addministrative in nature: Admin, medical, supply, etc.
AIR NG-Had their own jet fighter planes
ARMY NG-Had their own artillery and tanks

Rhode Island National Guard's 115th MP Company (now a Brigade) was activated and sent up to the USMA in April 1968. From November 1968 individuals from the 115th were levied to Vietnam. They served with distinction with the First Cavalry,the 1st Infantry Division, the 101st Airborne, The Americal Division, the 9th Infantry, the 11th Armored Cavalry, and the 18th Military Police Brigade.


wiki.answers.com...



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: MDDoxs
I won't disagree with the slight hypocrisy of Obama's statement, but a lot of this equipment has a legitimate and historically justified purposes.

When you have a such a large population of individuals, with incredibly high densities and you ask a comparatively small force to police them, you make up for the numerical disadvantage by being better equipped.

Now this numerical disadvantage isn't always the case, but their current policies on equipment does allow them to be effective when the situation requires it.

I saw a lot of pictures of officers in protective gears wielding clubs, yes with some weapons, but remind me last time the US occupied a foreign country with melee weapons alone?

I see a lot of standard issue equipment that has some modern flare to it, though the tracked tanks do seem a bit excessive


Just to conclude, I am not defending OBama's statement, just pointing out that the comparison illustrated is a bit unfair.


I'm sorry but your entire post was defending Obama, they mostly carry mêlée weapons because here at home most of their targets are unarmed Americans and the ones with guns are the back up. If you don't see that our government is slowly finding ways to call each and every one of us some kind of threat. They will be the occupying force in the US. And hopefully when they do make a move, our military will uphold their oath and come protect us from the enemies domestic.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:32 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen


originally posted by: xuenchen
Well Obama *DID* say something like this..............

He also said this on February 4, 2013:

"Weapons of war have no place on our streets".



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 08:39 PM
link   
So Obama wants to disarm us so we are defenseless against the terrorists. Well they technically aren't terrorists if they target us civilians. Only if they target big business or government interests. Normal warfare is target the people and leave the upper sects of government alone.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 09:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: gladtobehere
a reply to: xuenchen


originally posted by: xuenchen
Well Obama *DID* say something like this..............

He also said this on February 4, 2013:

"Weapons of war have no place on our streets".





Which makes him a clever little liar.




posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

I've read quite a few posts in this thread I fully disagree with the militarization of the police because it sets up a narcissistic "club" mentality, them and us "little people." But you have to ask yourself, are the police getting leading edge equipment or hand-me-downs from the past?

If the police side with the government in any action, they will have federal military backup to be sure. But what if the police deny federal or state orders they find too extreme? What if the entire purpose of militarizing the police is to give them false confidence?

The US did this to Saddam in Iraq starting in 1988. They State department authorized the sale to Saddam of tons of back issue weapons (just under a billion in 1988 dollars) so that he could regroup from the Iran/Iraq war and invade Kuwait. Then the US stomped his ass almost back to the stone-age in 30 days because he was seriously technologically outgunned. Saddam had a false confidence based on the idea that the US was onside and selling him weapons that were equivalent to what the US had for their own troops.

Maybe the police are being setup this same way and given this false confidence. Like I said if they are onside with the feds, they'll have backup, but if they are not, they will be just like the rest of us, except possibly slightly better equipped. Again this is potentially controlled opposition, controlled in the sense that the feds know what they can beat.

Cheers - Dave



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 09:15 PM
link   
a reply to: jude11



A pathetic hypocrite or madman?

Many know what I choose.


(C) ALL of the above. No need to choose.

He exemplifies to an intense degree the worst bits of human garbage from the last several millenia of tyrannical stooges from hell.

The only reason some of the more outrageous behaviors have not flowed from his office is that he may have sufficient brain cells to realize he can't get away with such . . . yet.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 09:22 PM
link   
The police are not fighting a war in another country. Justifying all this equipment to use against citizens is wrong. People, hopefully one day, will figure it out without getting hurt or oppressed. I give that slim odds though.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 10:51 PM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

Damn and here I thought you were going to say because he believes they belong in the sky. Drones.



posted on Jun, 22 2014 @ 10:56 PM
link   
a reply to: oblvion

Or perhaps the old are not a threat?; for they have effectively given up/had more time to be digested/jaded.

Either way; there are still young conservatives and older-liberals, moderates/those indifferent to politics/economics are the majority either way.
edit on 22-6-2014 by NonsensicalUserName because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 12:42 AM
link   
My God, this is what we have for cops when we see the occasional car.

ts1.mm.bing.net...

If that was my country we'd get the whole country to fire him and refuse to participate. Would have to arrange general strike until they're all gone and we would elect a kindly grandmother to get rid of every law that was there.

BS.

And with ISIS, and all the crapola happening and threats, keep your guns and weapons for self defense.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 01:59 AM
link   
The militarization of the police has gone too far.

Not that a certain amount of this sort of gear isn't necessary when you have gangs of whatever ilk armed with automatic weapons. The cop on the street isn't equipped, for the most part, to handle that.

But when little municipalities are pondering the acquisition of armoured vehicles simply 'cause they can? No. That's where the line should be drawn.

Melee weapons to break up riots don't qualify as weapon of war... I had the misfortune to get caught up in the periphery of the Seattle G8 riots a few years back... I saw the damage done by the rioters. The cops needed those.

There is a line that we shouldn't allow the govt. to cross in this matter. But that's the thing... Until we draw that line, and enforce it, it's going to continue.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 04:15 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

War is peace... ignorance is strength... slavery is freedom... Obama is an honest president... those police are protecting Americans... there's a pattern here.




posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 04:38 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

A single flag and star from me is not enough! You really drove the point home. Some of these pictures harked back on various images I've seen in Communist China and N. Korea, not the "land of the free".



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 04:45 AM
link   
My status has been the same for years. This #ing clown rustles my jimmies 24/7.

Where's Jaqen H'ghar when you have a name to give him?

If any whipped and brainwashed pig comes to try and force his master's bull# down my throat I've got both bolt and semi-automatic action for him. Either way bacon shall be served.



posted on Jun, 23 2014 @ 04:47 AM
link   
a reply to: gladtobehere

I think you are just a little bit confused and misguided, those are clearly weapons of peace and those are allowed, like dear president Obama said.




top topics



 
84
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join