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

My advice to Brits an Americans alike...

Be prepared.

Start attending community gatherings, and maybe discuss how your community would defend it's self in a SHTF scenario.

I wish I was joking.

I know i will be bashed for this but here i go. First, are the police and Government as corrupt as you guys make it look. i daily see people saying "they don't trust the police" or that "the government might go full Hitler on them" Is this true, if so disregard the rest of this (and tell me why you still say USA #1 if you can compare it to 1940's Germany)

As an outsider looking in (not from America) The weapons that Police have are unjustified in all 1st world countries, Except America. What do you think the police should take on gangbangers with Ak's and those nutters i hear on the news that kill kids at school with, Pepper spray and a Tazer?. With the amount of firepower available to the criminals, shouldn't the police have more firepower so they can stop them?

originally posted by: Sublimecraft
I'm really starting to think that this bloke just makes crap up to piss people off. If he's talking hardware, then he is an outright liar and/or oblivious to reality.

If he's talking software, then he must have had a blonde moment and forgotten about the constant overuse of Propaganda within mainstream media to sway public opinion (not just US either).

Typical POTUS patsy, just like those who came before him - your office is a global joke.

Haha Exactly!! He is trying to piss people off. There's no other explanation for his being this stupid.

Responsible gun owners scratch their heads every time they hear something like this. As a responsible gun owner, I cannot help that gang-bangers and serial killers are offing each other with a specific weapon. Banning it will achieve nothing except creating an underground black market. Maybe that's it; Maybe the gov wants in on the action of selling assault weapons to Americans?

We're hearing talk of illegals flooding across the borders at unheard-of levels. Maybe Obama sent out word that he's going to grant amnesty? So now, a way to keep Americans from rising against this invasion, he wants to take the weapons needed for it so that his ilk's plans will succeed? Something's about to go down.

a reply to: Sunwolf

depends on the situation at hand.

but you're right, the average police officer does not need a semi-automatic/select-fire rifle, nor for that matter do police on average need to have a pistol..

I would think if police were armed more with tazers=or some other less-than-lethal device (pepper-balls, etc.) we would all be better off.

the most I think officers would need would be a shot gun to use for crowd control/riot control (shooting beanbags, rubber-bullets) possibly grenade launchers (to fire tear-gas out of).

a reply to: Fylgje

hmm...

So what if we don't ban guns, rather just enforce actually existing laws, along with closing up some of the loopholes in the current system for background checks.

you know; something that could screen-out the irresponsible gun-owners.

guns already purchased would be grandfathered in, and only new gun-sales would be required to oblige by these laws.

originally posted by: Sunwolf

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: gladtobehere

No, Obama's right. There's no need for Mr or Mrs Average to have an assault rifle on the street. Period.

Then there is no reason for Mr. and Mrs. average police to have an assault rifle on the street is there?

Exactly. They have no more right to firepower or protection than we do.

In fact we have more right in both instances. It is our country not theirs, they get their rights from us, not us them.

We own this land, they can f.ck off, and we will still own it.

originally posted by: Idiosonic
I know i will be bashed for this but here i go. First, are the police and Government as corrupt as you guys make it look. i daily see people saying "they don't trust the police" or that "the government might go full Hitler on them" Is this true, if so disregard the rest of this (and tell me why you still say USA #1 if you can compare it to 1940's Germany)

As an outsider looking in (not from America) The weapons that Police have are unjustified in all 1st world countries, Except America. What do you think the police should take on gangbangers with Ak's and those nutters i hear on the news that kill kids at school with, Pepper spray and a Tazer?. With the amount of firepower available to the criminals, shouldn't the police have more firepower so they can stop them?

They dont have AK's first off stop listening to pierce morgan, didnt brittain take him back yet?

The problem is, if they get to use these against the gangsters, they think they can use them against you for jay walking as well......you see where this is going?

MRAPS used for childsupport warrants etc.....I am not making this up, it happens.

Government thinking is, we have an MRAP and automatics, we NEED to use them as much as possible.

How many peeps you think got over 10 bullet holes put in them when unarmed last year in America?

I give you a hint, it is over 20.

In fact, in America at present, you are much more likely to be killed by police when unarmed than by gangsters for any reason.

Police kill more every year than nongangsters killed by gangsters.

a reply to: TownCryer

I wouldn't go that far.

There are occasions when the street cop needs something a bit more ooomphy than their duty sidearm.

The North Hollywood Bank heist comes quickly to mind.

There are times when having an M4, or the like, in the trunk might be useful.

But there should be limits.

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TownCryer

I wouldn't go that far.

There are occasions when the street cop needs something a bit more ooomphy than their duty sidearm.

The North Hollywood Bank heist comes quickly to mind.

There are times when having an M4, or the like, in the trunk might be useful.

But there should be limits.

That happened exactly 1 time, that is it 1 time. 1 time a guy named Tom killed sombody, this does mean every time they meet Tom they get to shoot him.

Yours is the worst reasoning.

It was an extraordinary situation not even close to the norm. Dont make your future actions based off of the 1 and only 1 time the worst case happened.

Yours lies the way of tyrant rule my friend.

"well one time" yes out of millions, yes we should act like the 1 time is every time.......

You have no concept of normal, or reality do you?

Yes they killed 12 cops in 1 sitting, since then, because of your mind set, the cops have killed hundreds.

Which is a worse tragedy?

I say the hundreds of not these guys, since only these 2 guys deserved this type of reaction, but instead everyone is treated as if they are them now, because the cops going home at night trumps all of us making it home safe right?

a reply to: oblvion

Wow.

So a patrol officer who has an M4 carbine in the trunk of his car, with some ammunition, is a gateway to tyranny?

So, when the criminals have weaponry that is beyond the capacity of his sidearm to handle, he's not supposed to have the ability to defend himself, and the innocent folks around him?

Really? Is that what you're saying?

The danger of abuse is very real. I'm not denying that. Curtailing that abuse is our job as citizens. One step of that is making sure the need for these arms is real. In large metro areas I dare say there is a need. In my area? Not so much.

To make blanket statements such as yours is as misguided as you accuse me of being.

a reply to: Sunwolf

Yes, there is. When an idiot with an assault rifle goes nuts, we need the police to be equally armed in order to stop the nut with a machine gun. You seem to think that all assault rifle owners are Fred McMurray types who never do anything but help out. In reality a lot people with assault rifles shouldn't have them. The ability to complete an application form is not the same as being qualified to own a high powered killing machine. Our 2nd Ammendmant rights have nothing to do with a non-existant right to own an AR-15.

a reply to: seagull

An M4 yes.

An MRAP, no..


And this is coming from an ex-LEO and Military Vet.

a reply to: macman

I totally agree with you. Never said anything at all about thinking an MRAP would be appropriate.

When I was younger, I was glad the U.S. was spying on everyone. BTW, who didn't know that? I was glad we had alphabet agencies and heavily armed police with riot gear. However, as I got older, I realized that the government isn't really of the people. I still think all these things are necessary for security, I just think they're in the wrong hands.

BTW, look at what my peaceful little town just got.
photos.enidnews.com...

originally posted by: oblvion

originally posted by: seagull
a reply to: TownCryer

I wouldn't go that far.

There are occasions when the street cop needs something a bit more ooomphy than their duty sidearm.

The North Hollywood Bank heist comes quickly to mind.

There are times when having an M4, or the like, in the trunk might be useful.

But there should be limits.

That happened exactly 1 time, that is it 1 time. 1 time a guy named Tom killed sombody, this does mean every time they meet Tom they get to shoot him.

Yours is the worst reasoning.

It was an extraordinary situation not even close to the norm. Dont make your future actions based off of the 1 and only 1 time the worst case happened.

Yours lies the way of tyrant rule my friend.

"well one time" yes out of millions, yes we should act like the 1 time is every time.......

You have no concept of normal, or reality do you?

Yes they killed 12 cops in 1 sitting, since then, because of your mind set, the cops have killed hundreds.

Which is a worse tragedy?

I say the hundreds of not these guys, since only these 2 guys deserved this type of reaction, but instead everyone is treated as if they are them now, because the cops going home at night trumps all of us making it home safe right?

I'm pretty sure they didn't kill 12 cops, wounded yes.

Weapons of war have no place on our streets.

Damn straight, they should be in our homes.

originally posted by: TownCryer
a reply to: Sunwolf

Yes, there is. When an idiot with an assault rifle goes nuts, we need the police to be equally armed in order to stop the nut with a machine gun. You seem to think that all assault rifle owners are Fred McMurray types who never do anything but help out. In reality a lot people with assault rifles shouldn't have them. The ability to complete an application form is not the same as being qualified to own a high powered killing machine. Our 2nd Ammendmant rights have nothing to do with a non-existant right to own an AR-15.

When is the last time the Police have had to stop a nut with a machine gun?Yes,our 2nd Amendment has everything to do with owning any man portable arms the military has.What is a high powered killing machine?Do you even know what you are talking about?

a reply to: oblvion

Great points. Most don't realize that automatic weapons are pretty much room brooms, and have zero practicality aside from suppressive fire in a firefight.

Especially our friends from across the pond, they come on here knowing nothing about firearms and try to preach.

a reply to: seagull

I understand that. I wasn't trying to come across as hostile. Just adding my point.

a reply to: gladtobehere

People always forget that its a huge Fraternity and its not just the current president. Its all Presidents going back to probably Woodrow Wilson except JFK...He had a change of heart at the last minute.