Why Are Police Being Armed to the Teeth? Senators Ask

Newsweek

“What purpose are bayonets being given out [to local police] for?”

What the heck. Great question WHY?

The question was posed by Senator Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, during a Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing Tuesday to address the militarization of local police forces in the wake of the hyper-militarized response to protests over the killing by police of an unarmed African-American teenager in Ferguson, Missouri, last month.

That's exactly what we need, more weapons In these morons hands. To many examples of innocents being killed, figher fighters being arrested, crack dealing cops.

What's next tactical nukes for drug raids?

Thanks senator for questioning this ridiculousness.

The protests in Ferguson brought shocking images of unarmed, peaceful protesters being confronted by police in armored vehicles, wearing military fatigues and aiming their military assault rifles on people they are supposed to protect. Tuesday’s hearing, which Missouri Senator Claire McCaskill, a Democrat, promised won’t be the last, was an attempt by Congress to get to the bottom of why a St. Louis suburb turned so quickly into a war zone.

Looks like the riots In ferguson were a success. Apparently it takes an all out war for congress to seriously take a look at the militarization of the police.

a reply to: onequestion

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

a reply to: onequestion

Isnt it obvious? They need those weapons to oppress us even more. If we assemble peacefully we can expect to get a taste of their new toys. They will use them.

a reply to: Aleister

I'm all for giving them bayonets if their for muskets.

At least the. They can't fire off 100 shots into an unarmed civilian.

originally posted by: theyknowwhoyouare
a reply to: onequestion

Isnt it obvious? They need those weapons to oppress us even more. If we assemble peacefully we can expect to get a taste of their new toys. They will use them.

Technically they we're give. Out in 2006. Congress is just now questioning this.

a reply to: onequestion

Rand has been all over this.

Presidential hopeful Rand Paul slams the militarization of police.

As to why, we can only speculate.

My guess is that someone in government thinks that the slaves are getting too uppity.

a reply to: onequestion

They taught me this in Basic Training many years ago.

“What purpose are bayonets being given out [to local police] for?”

To kill, kill, kill ... with cold cruel steel.

Kid you not.

Give these guys new toys.

It's human nature to find a situation to use them.

What's next mortars or tactical nukes ?

Some Police have crossed the line. They are losing the trust of the people they serve.

Cameras are the answer. Not Military Surplus.

a reply to: gladtobehere

Hey I'm for rand paul questioning this.

As to the rest of his politics I have no idea.

Just now, really? Congress is way late on this. We're already subdued as a nation. The brutality seems pretty normalized. From what I've concluded, it's all part of the plan, so much for hopes in it turning around now.

a reply to: onequestion

Yeah but now the masses are aware of it. The whole point of militarizing the police is to circumvent those pesky laws preventing them from putting military boots on the ground.

If they are trained to react like military, and have military equipment, they are military. They need to have charges brought on for those calling these shots. The military-police need to be disbanded.

Put cameras on them and disarm them. This is the only way to reinstate our authority. It is better that 100 police die than one innocent person. They signed up for the job, they know the risks.

a reply to: Snarl

It was discovered in Iraq that bayonets work wonders for keeping unruly crowds at bay.

People know there's a line they have to cross in order to get shot but a big knife on the end of a barrel tends to blur the lines enough that people behave.

I don't think Police should have bayonets but I can see why they'd want them considering the fact that "protesters" have become desensitized to having a rifle pointed at them.

Hmm
We are surely headed for a world like Rogue Trip and Twisted Metal

If police think the general public are the enemy and are treating them as such, maybe it's time for the 'enemy' to fight back. They're going to need those bayonets, that's for sure - there are a lot of enemy than police.

originally posted by: BasementWarriorKryptonite
If police think the general public are the enemy and are treating them as such, maybe it's time for the 'enemy' to fight back. They're going to need those bayonets, that's for sure - there are a lot of enemy than police.

Think about what you just said and look at what happened in Ferguson.

If the police went in there outfitted like a British Bobby with only a nighstick for self defense, they would have been killed by the mob of angry racists because... like you said, there's a lot more enemy than police.

Disparity of force is exactly why the police feel the need to be heavily armed in situations like Ferguson. The L.A. Riots changed things. Everyone seems upset about the police being heavily armed but if they showed up undergunned and got hurt or killed, the public would be saying "well they should have known better than to try to fight a big angry mob with nerf bats."

a reply to: onequestion

Holy crap. I'd rather be shot with almost any modern rifle over a musketball any day. Anything that tumbles is not good for your internal organs. They chew you up inside. Give me a clean in and out shot. At least that way if it is a fatal shot, it'll be a quick death, and if it isn't, I'll recover. I'd prefer not to be hit by a .50 caliber bullet. At least leave my mother something to look at during the funeral. ;p

Any revolutionary needs to learn from Sun Tzu. Avoid their armies, ok? While they are setting up out in the field for battle, go around them and take the city through economics and propaganda. This is a much better way to wage war.

originally posted by: onequestion
figher fighters

Epic grammar.

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."

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.

I don't want to die, but I know that it's an inevitability. If the police in my country were armed like they are the the USA, I doubt I would be the only 'everyman' to go down fighting and if there's more than one of me there's a thousand and a thousand more.

There are only so many police and if they want to be our enemy, if it comes down to it then that's how I'll go out. It's how we all should go out, if that's the world that's being forced onto us.

Dramatic? I should think so.

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.