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.

 

Why Are Police Being Armed to the Teeth? Senators Ask

page: 2
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 10:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: Aleister
a reply to: onequestion

Bayonets? What are we, back in "the day"? Maybe they'll break out the muskets and powder next.



I think we'd all prefer that. Heck, I'd even be down with bringing back the gentlemans duel. With single shot muzzle loading pistols of course. You see, those gang bangers when they get intimidating, you could challenge them to a duel and you know they'd spend an hour trying to hit you, sitting nice an comfortable, taking your time with a nice shot planted in their balls for fun.

If a police officer was being a dick you could challenge them too, without their sub machine guns or glocks I'm sure they'd be wondering where the rest of their 11 bullets went??

Almost forgot your banking fat cats, I have a feeling a few dozen men would be standing with their pistols and a glove to slap some CEO faces. Ha. No sir you cannot have a bail out but you may stare at the business end of my pistol. Or would you prefer a sword? You may be too fat to get it over your stomach. Bahahaha

Oh how it would be grand.

*satire -based on ats themes, as if I even have to say it, but who knows these days...
edit on 13-9-2014 by boncho because: (no reason given)




posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 10:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Gh0stwalker

I'm on an iPad get over it.

Please add to the IDEA not the semantics.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: onequestion

Sen. Bernie Sanders said on August 18th

"When you see the kind of force that’s being used in Ferguson it really does make it appear that the police department there is an occupying army in a hostile territory, and that is absolutely not what we want to see in the United States. I think we gotta rethink a lot this heavy equipment that police departments around the country are utilizing."



Maybe Senator Sanders would like to explain to me the difference between an army in hostile territory and a policing force outnumbered by THOUSANDS of angry, hostile, violent protesters.

Go in undergunned and face a conflict or go in armed to the teeth and use intimidation to keep people under control... which makes more sense to you?



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 10:29 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
a reply to: Answer

No. Police don't require anything other than a pistol, a baton and in very dangerous situations a shotgun. They can have a trained sniper in a tactical team if required.

Anything more than that and we should consider ourselves the enemy.



Pistols and shotguns are woefully inadequate firearms in certain defensive situations. The North Hollywood shootout is just one example: en.wikipedia.org...

There are many MANY situations encountered by police where a rifle is a much better choice. Again I'll say it, if we restrict the weapons carried by police, the public will wail and gnash their teeth next time the police are unable to stop someone.

The cops are always damned if they do, damned if they don't.


When there are enough cops with the weapons I mentioned, it would have to be one epic shootout for them to come off second best. Sure, they can have basic rifle, to.

We need police - not paramilitary terrorists.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 10:32 AM
link   
Well...what else are they going to do with last year's models when there are so many new, shiny military toys to purchase with our tax dollars...?? Give them all to various international rebel factions? I think there is a little bit of that going on here - seriously - the MIC (military industrial complex) needs old usable things to be cast aside in favor of new things so that fat government contracts continue to come their way. Just a thought. The police departments, not having money to purchase high-level gear on their own are happy to accept the military's cast-offs, and Homeland Security is happy because they know that if something horrible happens, the police will be able to respond with force before, say, the National Guard can be rallied. I don't know what that "something horrible" could be, but, that's my two cents...
Perhaps worth less, but that's what I've got..


peace,
AB
edit on 13-9-2014 by AboveBoard because: grammer



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 10:34 AM
link   
The Police go home at night,so unless they are willing to reloacte with their families to Barracks no one needs to worry so much.

We all know Guerillas use everything they can get their hands on,the LAST THING I would do is put Military type weapons in non-military locations.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:18 AM
link   
a reply to: AboveBoard

That way of thinking it makes of perfect sense but in this world i would suggest also to tighten up punishment of police brutaliy and make video recording of polices actions required on a field etc, so that it would guarantee this new ability of our police would not be used against us, it would also help out with already happening cases of police brutality going on here than there rather than make citizens fearful of their own police force.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion
They do it t o intimidates no doubt, its a very messed up situation, Seems like TPTB fear us.
I guess if the pentagon doesn't give this stuff to the popo they will probably ship it to ISIS.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:31 AM
link   

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: onequestion

Sen. Bernie Sanders said on August 18th

"When you see the kind of force that’s being used in Ferguson it really does make it appear that the police department there is an occupying army in a hostile territory, and that is absolutely not what we want to see in the United States. I think we gotta rethink a lot this heavy equipment that police departments around the country are utilizing."



Maybe Senator Sanders would like to explain to me the difference between an army in hostile territory and a policing force outnumbered by THOUSANDS of angry, hostile, violent protesters.

Go in undergunned and face a conflict or go in armed to the teeth and use intimidation to keep people under control... which makes more sense to you?


It is my take on the issue that local police are peacekeepers. They should not be turned in to an army. If the situation calls for an army, call in the National Guard. If it is a war-zone, quit trying to pretend it is just a situation where the local peacekeepers can handle it. Call it what it is, a war zone and bring in the troops.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: romilo

I agree with you - I was mostly pointing out the economic benefit to certain parties with enough power to make such a thing a reality. You are spot-on with your assessment.


peace,
AB



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:51 AM
link   

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire

originally posted by: Answer

originally posted by: TerryMcGuire
a reply to: onequestion

Sen. Bernie Sanders said on August 18th

"When you see the kind of force that’s being used in Ferguson it really does make it appear that the police department there is an occupying army in a hostile territory, and that is absolutely not what we want to see in the United States. I think we gotta rethink a lot this heavy equipment that police departments around the country are utilizing."



Maybe Senator Sanders would like to explain to me the difference between an army in hostile territory and a policing force outnumbered by THOUSANDS of angry, hostile, violent protesters.

Go in undergunned and face a conflict or go in armed to the teeth and use intimidation to keep people under control... which makes more sense to you?


It is my take on the issue that local police are peacekeepers. They should not be turned in to an army. If the situation calls for an army, call in the National Guard. If it is a war-zone, quit trying to pretend it is just a situation where the local peacekeepers can handle it. Call it what it is, a war zone and bring in the troops.


The line between "Peacekeeping force" and "Army" is blurry. It changes in an instant.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 11:56 AM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I'd support tactical nukes in dealing with gangs.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 12:07 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

The oft cited North Hollywood incident used to bolster the argument of heavily armed police and swat teams begs a question,

Instead of having an out of control shootout endangering civilians and police alike, why not let them go on their way and track or use old fashioned detective work to catch them later?

Ruby Ridge and Waco could have been handled in a similar fashion along with the Bank Heist in North Hollywood having much different outcome.

Alas, doing it that way would not drive budgets, support more draconian laws nor enhance the departments budgets nor careers of officers involved.

Kind of reminds me of totally unnecessary high speed chases on TV - just let the perpetrator proceed and monitor till its developed into a more controllable and safer outcome.

Other side of the coin if its an active shooter or hostage situation then obviously a different response is called for, one where swat, snipers and tactical teams were originally justified.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 12:08 PM
link   
a reply to: ItCameFromOuterSpace
It's easy to get rid of gangs it's called end the drug war and for profit prisons and all incentives for the gangs are gone.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 12:11 PM
link   
a reply to: Phoenix
If they only had some bayonetes in North Hollywood..lol



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 12:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: romilo

make video recording of polices actions required on a field.

A friend of mine is a PBA rep. I've heard him take calls from cops who've broken the law, lost their tempers and hurt someone, or done other illegal actions. The fist thing he says to them...
“Was it caught on camera?”

BTW, when you support the BPA, FOP, etc. this is what you are really paying for... The legal defense of bad cops who have gotten into trouble for doing something wrong.

I actually overheard this conversation, no bull#...
Ring.
Hello.
What happened?
Okay...
Where were you standing in relation to the security cameras?
Okay...
Was it behind you so you were between it and the inmate?
Did it have a clear view of his arms?
Okay, you write up the report that he tried to grab you through the “bean flap”.

When my friend got of the phone, I asked him what that was about. He told me that a corrections officer got angry at a prisoner and kicked the bean flap of the cell door shut breaking both his arms. So I asked what the guy did to deserve it, and was told, “he mouthed off”.

The PBA...
Yeah, just keep sending them your money for that bumper sticker that all the cops laugh at.
AND...
Cops HATE cameras.
edit on 9/13/2014 by defcon5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 12:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Phoenix
a reply to: Answer


Other side of the coin if its an active shooter or hostage situation then obviously a different response is called for, one where swat, snipers and tactical teams were originally justified.



Spoken like someone who has no clue how long it takes to deploy a SWAT team.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 12:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Answer

Spoken like someone doesn't believe in the true second amendment.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 12:50 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I look to the day when congress kicks all the human
cops to the curb, for Robo cops or clones even. The
look on their faces, when they realise they backed
the wrong horse? Might almost be worth it.



posted on Sep, 13 2014 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Police are seriously being supplied with bayonets?

What on earth is next, maces? Whips? Crossbows?!



new topics

top topics



 
20
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join