the dhs bought over a billion rounds of ammo so THEY are obviously preparing for war but not in a foreign country

 

The Department of Homeland Security maintains the Border Patrol, TSA, and most importantly the United States Coast Guard (which is a military branch during times of war) among other agencies. Weapon Ranges alone would consume of thousands of rounds a day.

And, it wasn't 'billions' of rounds. There aren't billions of rounds anywhere within the United States.

 

there is no need for a STANDARD police officer to carry a AR15 on regular duties. that why we have swat, tactical officers, the national guard, the military.

 

First of all, SWAT and Tactical Officers would be carrying it as their primary. Unlike patrol officers. Secondly, the United States itself would loose its mind if the United States Military/National Guard started to go after common criminals. It's just a horrible image to conjure and in almost every way shape and form, illegal.

 

 

 

The Department of Homeland Security maintains the Border Patrol, TSA, and most importantly the United States Coast Guard (which is a military branch during times of war) among other agencies. Weapon Ranges alone would consume of thousands of rounds a day.

And, it wasn't 'billions' of rounds. There aren't billions of rounds anywhere within the United States.

 

 

First of all, SWAT and Tactical Officers would be carrying it as their primary. Unlike patrol officers. Secondly, the United States itself would loose its mind if the United States Military/National Guard started to go after common criminals. It's just a horrible image to conjure and in almost every way shape and form, illegal.

 

yes they did buy over a billion round of ammo no its not for boarder patrol..i wish that were true but they cant even keep our boarders secure, below are just a few articles about it

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/2013/03/11/1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammo-for-homeland-security-its-time-for-a-national-conversation/

 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/032213-649114-dhs-wont-answer-congress-on-ammunition-purchases.htm

 

http://rt.com/usa/dhs-ammo-investigation-napolitano-645/

 

http://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20130215-dhs-to-buy-1-6-billion-rounds-of-ammunition

yes they did buy over a billion round of ammo no its not for boarder patrol..i wish that were true but they cant even keep our boarders secure, below are just a few articles about it

 

 

A, "Billion" is not "Billions". That's a major numerical difference to be made. Also, the United States Military stockpiles an massive amount of rounds throughout the United States as well. And, the Department of Homeland Security was purchasing a majority of ammunition at a low price to aid in various corporations which were hit by the recession. There's a bit of your stimulus money at work, and if you've noticed in recent budgets, the ammunition purchase amounts have drastically declined comparatively. This is a common practice for a number of agencies to purchase and stockpile in low-cost ammunition in order to save money in the long run due to constrained budgets.

The Coast Guard isn't just military in times of war. It's *always* considered one of the armed forces of the United States. All members are subject to the UCMJ; they follow the military chain of command; they operate closely with the Navy (USCG detachments frequently serve on USN ships); they have cutters armed with military radars and weaponry (e.g. 25mm chain guns, 76mm naval artillery). I'm saying this here because I'm carrying over annoyance at a news article decrying militarized police that used the Coast Guard as an example, because they are and always have been a regular component of the actual military.

Other than the USCG, the federal military can't serve as law enforcement unless the Insurrection Act applies, which so far has basically been "citywide riots" and "states refusing to enforce federal court orders in civil rights cases". The National Guard can be law enforcement, but again, it's rare and mostly for cases of civil unrest. Massachusetts did call out the state militia during the Boston police strike...in 1919. The National Guard really doesn't do law enforcement.

There's also a big advantage equipping more cops with rifles: "Contain and wait for SWAT" has proven to be a really, really bad response to a lot of incidents. Several school shootings only got as far as they did because police set up a perimeter and waited for a SWAT team. Likewise, in a shootout, there isn't necessarily time for a SWAT team to arrive. While the cops are waiting for them, the crime scene isn't in stasis - shots are being actively fired.

I'm still not sure why it's worse for cops to have rifles than shotguns. While I understand the philosophy behind "cops shouldn't have weapons normal people can't have", and even agree with it to some extent, that should be applied in the permissive direction. Applying that rule should involve letting non-cops have AR-15s, not saying police can't have them. (also, I specifically didn't use the term "civilians", because police *are* civilians, as they're not in the military. The military does have a need for things which civilians shouldn't be allowed to have).

The Coast Guard isn't just military in times of war. It's *always* considered one of the armed forces of the United States. All members are subject to the UCMJ; they follow the military chain of command; they operate closely with the Navy (USCG detachments frequently serve on USN ships); they have cutters armed with military radars and weaponry (e.g. 25mm chain guns, 76mm naval artillery). I'm saying this here because I'm carrying over annoyance at a news article decrying militarized police that used the Coast Guard as an example, because they are and always have been a regular component of the actual military.

Ugh, don't remind me. They can just stay over in the United States and play 'board the boats' around the Southern border, and rescue swimmer it up toward the north. /endsarcasm

However, to be fair, while they are a uniformed service, they don't answer to the Department of Defense, unless otherwise stated.

"It operates under the Department of Homeland Security during peacetime, and can be transferred to the Department of the Navy by the President at any time, or by Congress during time of war."

So, while they are a military service, as a whole they preform strictly Maritime Law Enforcement duties under the Director of Homeland Security unless otherwise instructed. It's why you won't hear of USCG vessels engaging enemy vessels in coastal waters unless we're at war.

Edited January 3, 201412 yr by ArchangelTwo

tl;dr? Position: Pro

 

Very interesting debate gentlemen. Many sides have been brought up with excellent evidence. 

 

I see both extremes. First being the "Orwellian" view and the next being the North Hollywood shootout where the police were completely outgunned. 

 

As for an opinion, if civilians have access to it, the police should, but not in greater numbers. This may sound harsh, but this country was founded upon the principles of discontent, and discontent in any form is the highest form of patriotism. Recently, with the NSA and the 300 other Law Enforcement agencies, America should be paranoid that the tables have turned against them. Even in light of the Boston Marathon bombing, sure it was an absolutely horrific event and police were justified in what they did, but it's scary to suddenly see a full military police state just come out of the shadows. 

 

I'm a huge supporter of Law Enforcement (Mainly State & Local for the reason stated above), and as a resident of MA, I feel both the MSP and BPD should have access to AR-15's or other variants. And hey, if my small town of 17,000 recently bought an explorer with an Full pimped out M4, why can't a city of 5 million have 33?

 

@Ceril, Do you know if the MSP currently has M4's? Like the patrol officers. I see the MSP a lot, I go to a lot of shows and public events where they're posted, and I've never gotten around to asking a trooper, but I never see them in the standard gun cages between the Front Driver and Passenger seats. MA is very diverse, huge metropolitan cities in one place, vast rural farmland and forrest in another. 

 

Not sure if they carry AR's, I've never seen them with one.

I occasionally assist them with DUI checkpoints in my city, so I'll ask them about it the next time. It's fairly random when they do it, so I have no idea when that will be!

Well, giving officers some powerful firearms doesn't mean they'll use them to shoot down a bus or two of innocent civs. Some cituations really require some firepower. Does anybody remember North-Hollywood shootout? How many officers had been injured cause Glocks were unable to overpower the perps? BTW, LAPD was issued rifles after that incident... Russian Road patrol and some street patrol are often equipped with assault rifles, AK-74, military issue. Not that it causes something wrong.

Well, giving officers some powerful firearms doesn't mean they'll use them to shoot down a bus or two of innocent civs. Some cituations really require some firepower. Does anybody remember North-Hollywood shootout? How many officers had been injured cause Glocks were unable to overpower the perps? BTW, LAPD was issued rifles after that incident... Russian Road patrol and some street patrol are often equipped with assault rifles, AK-74, military issue. Not that it causes something wrong.

 

This. 

 

I do however see a problem from the public's perspective if armed law enforcement "walked" around with AR-15's.. I personally wouldn't give much of a care, but I do see some not familiar with law enforcement to be apprehensive. 

 

All OPP Cruisers (at least the ones I have been in) have C8 tactical carbines with NATO rounds (Colt Canada).. pretty mean beast, but they are in the cruisers console not out in public unless need be, out of sight out of mind (from the public's perspective).. until the need be of course. I also know all OPP officers are trained to use the firearm, I think proper training and firearm etiquette are essential if law enforcement become armed with firearms with such capability.

 

Link to the firearm if curious to see what it looks like: http://www.coltcanada.com/products-originalc8.htm

 

EDIT: Read a little more and noticed the perspective of many people whom believe police should be no more armed then there civilian counter parts, it's an interesting perspective as for me a Canadian with two parents as police officers.. the Police when dealing with armed combatants don't usually tend to deal with the "run of the mill" citizen. They are usually dealing with a career criminal, someone who doesn't necessarily care about the law. 

 

Then again the stories of police shootings in Canada are very few and far between. Even considering we have relatively lax gun laws, pretty much on par with Massachusetts after reviewing the two.  

Edited January 3, 201412 yr by captaincanada

http://youtu.be/DbX-brvYppc?t=1m21s

I shouldn't need to say anything. That shootout happened for real one year later in North Hollywood, California. Police were armed only with pistols and shotguns and did almost no good at all against high powered rifles and body armor. It wasn't until the SWAT team finally arrived that the police had a fighting chance. Look at how easily Val Kilmer's character (blonde guy with sunglasses) suppresses the police behind their cruiser doors, which bullets rip right through anyway. The police AR's aren't even fully automatic. They're single shot, but they can penetrate body armor easier and have much better range and accuracy. If anyone would like to, there is plenty of video footage of the real North Hollywood Shootout that happened the year after Heat came out, but its much longer and more drawn out and taken mostly from helicopter. Heat is a lot more exciting and gives you the idea of what kind of firepower cops could be up against for several hours until a SWAT team assembles and deploys where they need to be.

FYI: The mayor-elect is going to be the full mayor on Monday, so if he's against it, it likely won't happen unless the Governor puts pressure on him. Several cruisers in the small towns around here already have them.

Edited January 4, 201412 yr by unr3al

I don't know exactly how Boston works, but could this go to the city council instead of the mayor?

@captaincanada: Those who think the police should generally not be armed more than most people apply it permissively - the average law-abiding citizen should be allowed to be armed as well as police are. People who think this are generally of the view that because criminals don't obey the law anyway, gun control laws are stupid.

I don't know exactly how Boston works, but could this go to the city council instead of the mayor?

@captaincanada: Those who think the police should generally not be armed more than most people apply it permissively - the average law-abiding citizen should be allowed to be armed as well as police are. People who think this are generally of the view that because criminals don't obey the law anyway, gun control laws are stupid.

Why are gun control laws stupid? it makes people who dislike firearms feel safer, what does it matter anyway, if your not a rapist, serial killer or terrorist, you can pretty much have one legally, so who cares?

That's not gun control. Gun control says "no, you can't have a gun even if you've never broken any laws and are mentally stable." Or "you may only have one of this very restricted list of guns. Don't worry, this law will prevent the already-basically-nonexistent crime committed with these banned guns." (like with any sort of rifle; crimes aren't committed with rifles, it's just that those that are tend to make the news. Crimes are committed with *concealable* weapons)

That's not gun control. Gun control says "no, you can't have a gun even if you've never broken any laws and are mentally stable." Or "you may only have one of this very restricted list of guns. Don't worry, this law will prevent the already-basically-nonexistent crime committed with these banned guns." (like with any sort of rifle; crimes aren't committed with rifles, it's just that those that are tend to make the news. Crimes are committed with *concealable* weapons)

What i'm saying is, everyone gets what they want, these "proud" gun owners who can open carry get to do their thing while criminals go to jail for possessing illegal firearms, I get that people don't want to be told what they can and can't do, I hate it myself, but if there are things that I have restrictions on things that have nothing to do with firearms, why shouldn't gun owners? Seems like the only reasoning that I've seen with open carry is "because I can and it's my right" which is indeed a poor excuse to carry a firearm, I have changed my opinion somewhat on guns since the last flame war, but they don't need to be carried around in public, maybe kept in storage at home in case you need to protect your family, but that's it.

What i'm saying is, everyone gets what they want, these "proud" gun owners who can open carry get to do their thing while criminals go to jail for possessing illegal firearms, I get that people don't want to be told what they can and can't do, I hate it myself, but if there are things that I have restrictions on things that have nothing to do with firearms, why shouldn't gun owners? Seems like the only reasoning that I've seen with open carry is "because I can and it's my right" which is indeed a poor excuse to carry a firearm, I have changed my opinion somewhat on guns since the last flame war, but they don't need to be carried around in public, maybe kept in storage at home in case you need to protect your family, but that's it.

Laws against rape, robbery and murder don't get in the way of self defense.

Laws against rape, robbery and murder don't get in the way of self defense.

That kind of reasoning is why guns should be illegal, if someone rapes your sister, are you going to go murder them? if someone robs you, are you going to shoot them? if someone murders your friend, your going to find them and shoot them dead? sorry but that isn't self defense, that's Murder with a capital "M".

That kind of reasoning is why guns should be illegal, if someone rapes your sister, are you going to go murder them? if someone robs you, are you going to shoot them? if someone murders your friend, your going to find them and shoot them dead? sorry but that isn't self defense, that's Murder with a capital "M".

No, that kind of irrationality is why people who know nothing about a subject should refrain from commenting on it. A man pins a small woman down in a dark alley, that's grounds for her to shoot him in self defense. Some one breaks into my house in the middle of the night, he has a knife, baseball bat or a gun, that's grounds for me to shoot him in self defense. I'm in a crowded place and some one bursts in with a gun and starts shooting people, that's grounds for me to shoot him in self defense.

 

Murder is premeditated. Self defense may be trained for, but one does not choose when and where he or she will defend oneself. 

No, that kind of irrationality is why people who know nothing about a subject should refrain from commenting on it. A man pins a small woman down in a dark alley, that's grounds for her to shoot him in self defense. Some one breaks into my house in the middle of the night, he has a knife, baseball bat or a gun, that's grounds for me to shoot him in self defense. I'm in a crowded place and some one burst in with a gun and starts shooting people, that's grounds for me to shoot him in self defense.

 

Murder is premeditated. Self defense may be trained for, but one does not choose when and where he or she will defend oneself. 

As much as i'd love to tell you why my opinion is right and yours is wrong, we will sit here all day proving a point that is irrelevant, things in Canada are different and most of us are taught why firearms are wrong and what their purpose is, we have the law in place for a reason, but hey, I won't argue since Americans are apparently right in the sense of carrying (that was a whole lot of sarcasm)

Edited January 4, 201412 yr by Slimory

As much as i'd love to tell you why my opinion is right and yours is wrong, we will sit here all day proving a point that is irrelevant, things in Canada are different and most of us are taught why firearms are wrong and what their purpose is, we have the law in place for a reason, but hey, I won't argue since Americans are apparently right in the sense of carrying (that was a whole lot of sarcasm)

The "law" doesn't prevent you from getting killed, and it doesn't let you live to see the next day either. It's a decision made by the people around you and yourself whether the law is followed, thus, your safety is in the hands of those around you and ultimately, your own hands.

Choosing to live to see the next day isn't taking the law into your own hands.

In this modern day and age, when gang members have AK47's and Uzis, (SoCal its not uncommon to hear about someone being busted with one...or a grip of them)

 

recently they busted a house in my neighborhood being used for arms trafficking, this motherfucker had, and i quote:

 

"Agents seized a machine gun, a fully automatic Uzi-style submachine gun, 36.4 grams of C-4 plastic explosive, grenade fuses, more than 100 handguns, 60 rifles, and an additional 40 weapons that fall under California’s definition of restricted assault rifles. They also seized a restricted short-barreled shotgun and a rocket launcher tube — without any rockets."

Full Article:  http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2013/11/08/owner-of-riverside-home-raided-in-huge-weapons-bust-identified/

 

All in my neighborhood, right next to the park i always hang out at. And i don't even live in tha hood, yo. 

 

so with that said,

 

Yes, it is completely necessary for cops to have AR-15's. I think every patrol car should be equipped. You never know who your pulling over/what your walking into during certain law enforcement situations. As proved by the North Hollywood Shootout.  With people as crazy as they are you can never know what to expect. This guy around the corner from me had FUCKING C4? WTF? and ROCKET LAUNCHER PODS?!

 

Most of all though its important for (responsible) citizens to arm themselves, because when your in the middle of a home invasion robbery would you rather wait 5 minutes for the cops or handle the situation right away to keep your family safe? That will be the longest 5 minutes ever if you cant defend yourself. Sometimes there is no time to wait around to rely on law enforcement. but thats getting off topic now..

 

by all means, yes, to keep society safe the police need to stay one step ahead of the criminals.

 

That's not gun control. Gun control says "no, you can't have a gun even if you've never broken any laws and are mentally stable." Or "you may only have one of this very restricted list of guns. Don't worry, this law will prevent the already-basically-nonexistent crime committed with these banned guns." (like with any sort of rifle; crimes aren't committed with rifles, it's just that those that are tend to make the news. Crimes are committed with *concealable* weapons)

 

I disagree. Gun control laws are not always you can't have a gun.

 

It could mean you need to complete courses, safety courses, firearm etiquettes courses, background checks.. (Like Canada for say)

 

What you just explained is abolition. Most countries like Canada and many many others have population's that have a large proportion of the citizenry that agree, "no one needs a fully automatic rifle". To many Americans this Draconian, to  very few Canadians it is. (As an example)

 

Different mindset. 

 

But to call gun control laws "you can't have guns even though you have never broken the law and are mentally stable" is an overshoot at the least. Anyone in Canada could eventually get a firearm you simply need to work for it, prove you are worthy. And no its not expensive. 

 

I'm not saying gun control laws work or not. But I'll tell you one thing, when my mom heads to a domestic in rural Canada and USED to be able to do a simple check on the firearms registry whether or not they had firearms it made her job a lot easier and safer. (We removed our gun registry). 

 

The idea to me that an American citizen could walk into a store and by a firearm without providing proof of capability is astounding to me. Would you be able to buy a car a drive it without a license? Or without insurance, I think not. I hope you catch my drift. EDIT: I realize not all states are like this..

Edited January 4, 201412 yr by captaincanada