Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Discussion in 'Politics' started by NorseMythology, May 19, 2015.

  1. "Obama Announces Ban On Military-Style Equipment for Police"

    Later in the article

    " For decades, the Pentagon has made military-style equipment-armored trucks, bayonets, assault rifles, etc.-available to local police
    departments. According to The New York Times, just since Obama was elected, "police
    departments have received tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition
    magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of
    silencers, armored cars and aircraft."

    Holy shit, be proud they take us as that serious of a threat.

    " Much of these supplies will no longer be allowed to flow from the Pentagon to local police departments. Banned outright are armored vehicles that ride on tank-tracks, as well as bayonets, grenade launchers, and large-caliber firearms. Other military-style equipment will be allowed, but more tightly
    controlled. These items include armored vehicles and riot gear."

    Really, no bayonets? No need! If a camo dude doesnt silently snipe you at night from an armoured car, they will send a drone.


    www.nationaljournal.com/white-house/obama-announces-ban-on-military-style-equipment-for-police-20150518

    Notice the attempt to humanize them at the end, yea they need some good PR.They want to create productive members of society. Hell yea, we need these upcomers to be productive, they have a huge fuckin' debt waiting to be worked off.
     

    Attached Files:

  2. The paranoid part of me wants to believe that this is a preemptive strike.

    The federal government foresees that state governments may work against them.

    -yuri
    The paranoid part of me wants to believe that this is a preemptive strike.

    The federal government foresees that state governments may work against them.

    -yuri
     
  3. I think it's just a bullshit attempt to appease a pissed off public when really they already have way more military gear than they should (which is none at all for any reason). It's all smoke and mirrors. Just more sewage from the emperor to try to keep people from seeing him/them as the violent, oppressive regime who could give the slightest fuck about anyone but themselves.
     
  4. #4 JohnnyWeedSeed, May 19, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: May 19, 2015
    In fact, I believe the swine ordering this gear deliberately order way to much. They do it firstly to put more stolen tax slave money into the pockets of their buddies that lobby and make the gear and then they get to say

    "oh darn it! We ordered waaaaayyy more than we needed. Well, no sense in letting it go to waste or auction it to the public, can't have the prols armed. We will give it to our heros in blue to kill the public off for us. It's a win win situation! Huzzah! "
     
  5.  
    something tells me that they won't be taking back all of the gear they already handed out..
     
  6. Reminds me of something Bill Maher said in the wake of the Boston marathon bombings : "Did you know Boston had its own army?"
     
  7. They're probably thinking they're going to create a 3rd faction if they keep giving them military stuff.. the government, the people, and the police. You'd think we would learn our lesson in terms of arming people.
     
  8. This is entirely meaningless. If you've already handed everyone a baseball bat, saying you're now going to stop handing out baseball bats to those who don't have them is just PR.
     
  9. Two steps forward one step back.
     
  10.  
    There's nothing wrong with arming people.  [​IMG]   
     
    Arming the state is the problem. [​IMG]      [​IMG]
     
    There is no 3rd faction: It's government and its mouthpieces on one side, liberty-loving people on the other.
     
    Sir, there have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men-the lovers of freedom, and the devoted advocates of power. -- U.S. Senator Robert Hayne, January 21, 1830
     
  11.  
    I know we won't agree on this.. but I personally think that not only do our police/the state need to be demilitarized, but also our people. I mean, I find it just as ridiculous that someone uses an assault rifle to hunt with as I do a sheriff's office owning an armored vehicle. Don't really feel like getting into a debate over guns though.. lol, and my 3rd faction was more in jest, but in a way possible-ish. I don't see police as just pawns of the state.. I see police made up of people and if shit ever actually hit the fan, some police will side with the people and some police will side with the state. Even if I were in the government and looked at police as my pawns.. I wouldn't want to arm them more than what is needed cause it's not uncommon for pawns to want to be more than pawns and turn on you themselves.
     
  12.  
    Yes, it's always a crap shoot. There are no guarantees.
     
    In an unstable state, even the military can split up into factions, some in allegiance to the state, some to the people. When push comes to shove, he who has the most guns -- and the will to use them -- usually wins. (See the overthrow of the Romanian dictator, 1989.)
     
    I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote that about 1/3 of the Americans supported secession with Britain, 1/3 were loyal to Britain, and 1/3 were in the middle. And "support" can mean a lot of things: Literal fighting? Sending money to one side anonymously? Secretly sheltering men who are in danger? Feeding them? Writing anonymous newspaper articles supporting one side?
     
    "There are no absolutes, except for the statement 'There are no absolutes'."
     
    FTR: The founders believed that the people should be as well-armed as the state, in order to protect liberty. That has nothing to do with tanks and nukes, but has everything to do with battle rifles ("assault" weapons).
     
  13. ^  that's my sperm count. :(
     
  14. Aw

    -yuri
     
  15. There shouldnt be any federally controlled military imo. All states should have its own military and there should be a provisional organization for times of war. If someone attacks California and their defenses are able to do the job other states could and would elect to join in defending them.

    It makes no sense to have one military for 50 countries(states). But we are no longer the united states we are The United States as if its one entity.
     
  16. I thought it was a blank target needing some red circles and a bullseye.
     
  17. We come together because opposites attract 
     
  18. That a song lyric or what because idk what you are referring to and it could rhyme.
     
  19.  
    I don't disagree with that, except for the last line.. I feel as if many of the founders saw the battle rifles of today, they'd probably rethink that thought. I also see a difference between the military, the police, and the people.. and since the beginning, the people have typically been as well armed as the military in terms of guns. Problem was, the police weren't. There was no point in wasting resources to arm the police like you would the military when you already have access to the military, the national guard.. but as the military and people played the arms race, the people reached a point where the state needed to put more into their police and then the police joined the arms race. It shouldn't be like that.. and it's good the police are getting knocked down a peg.. but the people need to be in check too. People don't like that.. but they do a piss poor job of keeping themselves in check. We don't actually need assault rifles.. and if we didn't want them, the police wouldn't need them. The police obviously need to back down first.. but so do the people. Leave the assault rifles for the military.. cause reasonably, I don't see the military turning on the people. The government might be dumb, but it's not that dumb. That'd basically be an open invitation to get fucked by another country.. a sign of weakness. I think we should back down the police, then back down the people.. at the very least make it so individuals need to serve for at least the national guard to be allowed to own assault rifles.
     
    Just a random ending thought.. not that I want to will this to happen, but I bet that within the next 10 years.. a civilian or group of them will be shot by another civilian via drone. Shit is getting out of hand on all sides.
     

Share This Page