Obama: Take Military equipment from Police now

[KSDAWG]

It was good fortune. No cookies needed

[Soonerdawg]

For now. They're trying to tax that [air], too.

“One day [Bishop Bienvenu] preached the following sermon in the cathedral:—

'My very dear brethren, my good friends, there are thirteen hundred and twenty thousand peasants' dwellings in France which have but three openings; eighteen hundred and seventeen thousand hovels which have but two openings, the door and one window; and three hundred and forty-six thousand cabins besides which have but one opening, the door. And this arises from a thing which is called the tax on doors and windows. Just put poor families, old women and little children, in those buildings, and behold the fevers and maladies which result! Alas! God gives air to men; the law sells it to them. I do not blame the law, but I bless God.'”

Excerpt From: Hugo, Victor. “Les Misérables.” iBooks.
This material may be protected by copyright.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Well, well, well.

goodness the local police force in SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF had heavy armament and vehicles to handle this situation.
WTG Men in Blue trained in the correct tactics..and yes probably with military type equipment and vehicles and military tactics


BREAKING NEWS: SHOOTOUT WITH SUSPECTS IN OFFICE MASSACRE
Cops corner SUV, exchange fire with 3 gunmen believed to have murdered 14 people in San Bernardino, Calif.

UPDATE: POLICE IN SAN BERNARDINO, CALIF., exchange fire with three suspects in the massacre of 'upwards of 14 people' at a holiday party in a county office building. Reports say two suspects are dead, one is believed to be barricaded in a nearby home. Nearby residents reportedly are being told to shelter in place.

• VIDEO: Calif. police reportedly in pursuit of suspects; shots fired
• VIDEO: At least 17 people injured in California mass shooting
• VIDEO: Police say upwards of 14 fatalities, 14 wounded in attack
• VIDEO: Witness on police shootout with SUV: 'Sounded like Vietnam'

[DevilDawg31]

Take away all the words and news flashes, and just look at the picture. Regardless of the crime, what I see from the picture is the local government supplied with overwhelming assets that provide the United States citizens with no capabilities of defending themselves from tyranny. In order to not sound paranoid, I will say I do not have any feeling whatsoever of our police force becoming a tyrannical tool, and I believe these police undoubtedly did the right thing. They are definitely heroes. But as a citizen in a democracy, you always have to wonder "what if."

Now let's look at the crime. Three armed men shoot and kill 14 people and injure many others. Of course this is a terrible crime, and these murderers are evil; and I believe if the police had these assets then they should have used them. However, taking down three gunmen is not going into battle. The police don't NEED armored tracked vehicles or heavy military equipment to take down three gunmen. Your local police force should have the manpower to outnumber three individuals with guns and the brains to be able to do so effectively without the use of tanks. The safety of police officers who put their lives on the line for situations like these does not outweigh our second amendment right to bear arms that will help to defend ourselves against tyranny.

The second amendment is very sacred being that it is the second, and I don't doubt you agree with this. But what's the point of having the second amendment when all we are allowed to have (without excessive taxes and fees) is assault rifles and hand guns, but the government POLICE force has tracked vehicles, .50 cals, and weaponized aircraft and vehicles readily accessible? There's no point. Any force that deals with the local populace should have weapons relatively equivalent to those the average citizen is allowed to own. I believe arguments can be made for the police to have light machine guns, latest assault rifles, body armor, and a limited number of armored (not weaponized or tracked) vehicles, among other things. That's not enough equipment to be able to overpower the population, but it is definitely enough to stop crime at a local level.

Again, I am a huge supporter of our local policemen, and at times their job is harder than a U.S. troop's because of the large microscope that hovers over the police force. However, the police do not need what was on the prohibited items list, which is where this conversation began in the first place. The argument here is did the police need items on the prohibited list to stop three gunmen. The answer is no. The fourteen people killed are sad, yet irrelevant statistics to support your argument.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

Take away all the words and news flashes, and just look at the picture. Regardless of the crime, what I see from the picture is the local government supplied with overwhelming assets that provide the United States citizens with no capabilities of defending themselves from tyranny. In order to not sound paranoid, I will say I do not have any feeling whatsoever of our police force becoming a tyrannical tool, and I believe these police undoubtedly did the right thing. They are definitely heroes. But as a citizen in a democracy, you always have to wonder "what if."

Now let's look at the crime. Three armed men shoot and kill 14 people and injure many others. Of course this is a terrible crime, and these murderers are evil; and I believe if the police had these assets then they should have used them. However, taking down three gunmen is not going into battle. The police don't NEED armored tracked vehicles or heavy military equipment to take down three gunmen. Your local police force should have the manpower to outnumber three individuals with guns and the brains to be able to do so effectively without the use of tanks. The safety of police officers who put their lives on the line for situations like these does not outweigh our second amendment right to bear arms that will help to defend ourselves against tyranny.

The second amendment is very sacred being that it is the second, and I don't doubt you agree with this. But what's the point of having the second amendment when all we are allowed to have (without excessive taxes and fees) is assault rifles and hand guns, but the government POLICE force has tracked vehicles, .50 cals, and weaponized aircraft and vehicles readily accessible? There's no point. Any force that deals with the local populace should have weapons relatively equivalent to those the average citizen is allowed to own. I believe arguments can be made for the police to have light machine guns, latest assault rifles, body armor, and a limited number of armored (not weaponized or tracked) vehicles, among other things. That's not enough equipment to be able to overpower the population, but it is definitely enough to stop crime at a local level.

Again, I am a huge supporter of our local policemen, and at times their job is harder than a U.S. troop's because of the large microscope that hovers over the police force. However, the police do not need what was on the prohibited items list, which is where this conversation began in the first place. The argument here is did the police need items on the prohibited list to stop three gunmen. The answer is no. The fourteen people killed are sad, yet irrelevant statistics to support your argument.

Not worth responding to you post at all yet until you watch the news and view the pics out there better. This was a well thought out islamic/muslim terrorist attack. Just watch how it unfolds, how quick we were able to respond with well trained and equipped local police force (actually practicing this week and that day with the proper military equipment and military type tactics) and how wrong you are.

[DevilDawg31]

I don't understand. I looked at the pictures. Were there any armored tracked vehicles, weaponized vehicles/aircraft, .50 caliber weapons, or bayonets used by the police to stop the shooters? If not, then I don't know what point you are trying to make here. I saw the armored (not weaponized) vehicles, and I saw the tracked vehicle in the photo on the thread, which was the one to which I was referring. Other than that one tracked vehicle at the end, I don't see anything on the prohibited items list or anything that has to do with this conversation. I agree, Islam is a violent religion, if that's what you're suggesting. But we shouldn't militarize our police because of that.

I guess what I'm asking is for you to state your argument plainly so we can move forward.

[TYLERTECHSAS]

You know, the title of this thread makes a whole lot of sense now after seeing what happened during the "Empty Suited One's" reign of destruction and his undermining of the countries police departments.

DOJ to revisit Obama-era agreements with local police departments

• Dramatic rise in police officers gunned down in line of duty in 2016
• Justice Dept. report finds 'pattern or practice' of excessive force by Chicago police
• Police chief praises Trump's executive order to protect law enforcement
• FLASHBACK: Use of ‘consent decrees’ to police law enforcement likely to end under Trump, Sessions