Jump to content



Photo

Obama is taking away the Sherif's Armored Personnel Carrier


  • Please log in to reply
50 replies to this topic

#21 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 02:55 AM

Mr. Gray, I do know the difference between a peace officer and a soldier. The problem is that the line has become so blurred. It is getting harder and harder for our citizens and our politicians to know the difference. There is a reason that our forefathers made a standing army unconstitutional. Do you know what that reason is?

#22 Oldgoat

Oldgoat

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 10:10 AM

Sorry, Oldgoat, but from my understanding of history it is always waged to enrich the powers that be.  More land, more resources, more peasants, more money.  How long have any number of countries tried to control the mid-east and to what effect? 

 

I know Cheney made off with a lot of money, but he's no different than any other warmonger profiteer from time eternal.     

Have you ever studied history?  Muslim aggression has been going on for over 1300 years and it has always been about the "caliphate" or creating an Islamic theocracy throughout the world.  Jews and Christians were virtually purged from the Middle East for centuries.  Spain and other European countries were overrun by Muslim hordes.  The Crusades were originally a reaction to the Muslim aggression.  If I'm not mistaken, The Munich Olympic Massacre, the Beirut bombing, Pan Am Flight 103, Achille Lauro and hundreds of other attacks happened long before Bush-Cheney.  I might add that the Clintons were (and still are) just as chummy with the Saudis as the Bushes.  You attack on the NRA also holds no water.  California (where San Bernardino is) has exactly the firearm laws that your leftie friends want.  EACH weapon used in the attack was illegal.  How did that work out for us?  In spite of the liberal lies, the parts of America with the strictest gun control consistently have the highest violent crime rates.  Chicago's gun laws are draconian and a weekend in Chicago has more casualties than a month in  the battlefields of Iraq.  State after state has seen violent crime drop after passing concealed carry laws.  Those are facts that you can easily verify.  The California gun laws did NOTHING but make those poor unfortunate victims sitting ducks!  Not only were the law abiding victims restricted in their right to carry, the building was a gun free zone.  That also worked out well, didn't it!  One might also remember that France has very restrictive gun laws yet the terrorists of last months attach were armed to the teeth.  Your position is just not rooted in fact.


  • Beading Lady, CityBoy, jiyabird and 2 others like this

#23 Oldgoat

Oldgoat

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,980 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 10:23 AM

I'm not interested in supporting a standing army in my town. I'm not interested in allowing our peace officers to become another branch of our military.

You are being used by the left Russell!  The local police are NOT under control of the Federal Government and I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of local officers are very strong supporters of our Constitutional rights.  Rather that being a "local branch of the military" they would most definitely be your first line of defense against Federal overreach.  Oathkeepers is a large group of law enforcement officers that have pledged to do just that.  Local police are controlled locally, by people that you elect.  Leadership is changed regularly.  We have little or no control over the Federal Bureaucracy.  Local police are going up against increasingly violent drug gangs (many armed by Holder and Obama) and the threat of terrorism exists everywhere.  If you want to see a great example of why police need DEFENSIVE armor, Google Norco Shootout! Discrediting local police is pure Alinskyism.  Don't let them play you! .


Edited by Oldgoat, 05 December 2015 - 10:25 AM.

  • Mr. Gray and Col-Arthur like this

#24 Matt

Matt

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 10:24 AM

While I disagree with Obama 99.9% of the time, this one I do agree with. We should demilitarize our police forces nation wide. Military equipment and hardware should be used exclusively by our armed forces who are trained to do so. With that said, the National Guard is just a phone call away for those of you who think you need a military presence on site.

#25 woo

woo

    Key Club

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,726 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 10:33 AM

With that said, the National Guard is just a phone call away for those of you who think you need a military presence on site.

Any idea how long it would take for the National Guard to respond to an active shooter situation in Clark County?


  • jiyabird likes this

#26 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 10:41 AM

When I was in it would have been about three days but that was

before they started using them to supplement the regular army.

 

Besides, all you're going to get is more bodies carrying M16's.

(and the police tactical units already have those)

No APC's in this immediate area. Just regular infantry.


Edited by RiverFox, 05 December 2015 - 10:45 AM.


#27 Matt

Matt

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 312 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 10:41 AM

Any idea how long it would take for the National Guard to respond to an active shooter situation in Clark County?


Any idea how long it takes the sheriff to deploy this piece of equipment under the same circumstances?

This will be the argument supporters of a militarized police force will have, but its something I am willing to live with.
  • kelley likes this

#28 Russell Brooksbank

Russell Brooksbank

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,412 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 11:18 AM

You are being used by the left Russell! The local police are NOT under control of the Federal Government and I can assure you that the overwhelming majority of local officers are very strong supporters of our Constitutional rights. Rather that being a "local branch of the military" they would most definitely be your first line of defense against Federal overreach. Oathkeepers is a large group of law enforcement officers that have pledged to do just that. Local police are controlled locally, by people that you elect. Leadership is changed regularly. We have little or no control over the Federal Bureaucracy. Local police are going up against increasingly violent drug gangs (many armed by Holder and Obama) and the threat of terrorism exists everywhere. If you want to see a great example of why police need DEFENSIVE armor, Google Norco Shootout! Discrediting local police is pure Alinskyism. Don't let them play you! .


I'm not being used by anyone. I'm my own man with my own opinions. I don't believe that the police are my first line of defense. I am my first line of defense. The police will show up in time to sort out who shot who and why. Yes, Oathkeepers is a great organization. I consider myself an Oathkeeper. I'm certain that we have at least one on Clarksville's force. Sad thing was when I asked him if he was one he said that he was but couldn't be so publicly.

As far as the police being under local control, I agree, but have you not seen the calls to nationalize our police? I stand by my statement that the role of peace officer and soldier has become blurry and it's getting blurrier as time marches on. I do not disagree that our police need personal protection. I do think though that the increasing use of military tactics is what is putting police in harms way more than what is necessary. Let's take the "No-Knock" raid for example. The use of this tactic has put more officers and civilians at risk than these active shooter scenarios. There is a lot that can be done to reduce risk that does not involve militarizing out police.

#29 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 11:29 AM

Well since a lot of recent discussions have devolved into dumbs**t, I may as well join the club.

This is from an old "friend" of ours. (don't recall his screen name offhand)  :hyper:

CRITICAL ALERT! TO ALL AMERICAN PATRIOTS AND THOSE USA CITIZENS INTERESTED IN HELPING TO RID THE UNITED STATES AND THE WORLD OF THE CRIMINAL CABAL ILK…
WE HAVE BEEN RECEIVING ‘INTEL’ FROM RELIABLE SOURCES INSIDE THE AMERICAN CABAL MILITARY (ACTUAL SOLDIERS IN ALL LEVELS AND POSITIONS) PROMPTED BY THEIR CONCERNS REGARDING THE ‘JADE HELL-M 15’ ‘DRILL’ IN AMERICA.
AMERICA’S SOLDIERS WERE UNAWARE THAT THEY WERE NOT SERVING THE AMERICAN REPUBLIC’S ARMY BUT HAVE BEEN ‘EMPLOYED’ BY THE ARMY OF THE UN/ NWO / NATO / CRIMINAL CABAL BANKSTERS. THEY HAVE COME TO REALIZE THAT OUR NATION, THE UNITED STATES, DOES NOT HAVE A TRUE GOVERNMENT OR A MILITARY.
THOSE IN THE ‘AMERICAN’ MILITARY HAVE COME TO REALIZE THAT THEY HAVE BEEN REPEATEDLY LIED TO BY THE CABAL USA MILITARY. THEY ARE TALKING ABOUT HOW THEY HAVE COME TO RECOGNIZE THAT THEY ARE SERVING THE WRONG ‘MASTERS’ AND THEY ARE, IN FACT, COMMITTING CRIMES ON BEHALF OF THE CABAL AND ARE NOT SERVING AMERICA AND HER PEOPLE IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER.

http://greenmtnboyz.blogspot.com/

... and watch out for those contrails kids ... they'll get you every time.   :frantics:



#30 GrumpyGranny

GrumpyGranny

    Local Legend

  • Administrators
  • 5,169 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 03:07 PM

 

This is from an old "friend" of ours. (don't recall his screen name offhand)  :hyper:

 

 

Off topic...

 

Dang, Riverfox, you have a great memory! This member was only around for six weeks or so, five years ago; 102 posts and probably close to half of them not fit to be seen by our members...as determined by our esteemed administrators and moderators.


  • kelley and RiverFox like this

#31 Mr. Gray

Mr. Gray

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 705 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 03:21 PM

Totally amazing how the story about one ONE armored personnel carrier to be used only for officer safety in a situation that would protect lives has so many upset.  Makes me wonder if the loved ones of said complainers needed saving if they would complain.  And if I read correctly it was painted white, not that very dangerous green or even deadlier sand colored !  

Crazy !  But not surprising..............


Edited by Mr. Gray, 05 December 2015 - 03:23 PM.

  • RiverFox likes this

#32 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 03:48 PM

Off topic...

 

Dang, Riverfox, you have a great memory! This member was only around for six weeks or so, five years ago; 102 posts and probably close to half of them not fit to be seen by our members...as determined by our esteemed administrators and moderators.

 Yeah. I've been told that I'm a "compendium of totally useless information".    :geek:


  • GrumpyGranny and kelley like this

#33 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 05:03 PM

Totally amazing how the story about one ONE armored personnel carrier to be used only for officer safety in a situation that would protect lives has so many upset. Makes me wonder if the loved ones of said complainers needed saving if they would complain. And if I read correctly it was painted white, not that very dangerous green or even deadlier sand colored !
Crazy ! But not surprising..............



I haven't noticed anyone being that upset. Some of us just aren't upset it's gone and believe the general trend of police militarization is a problem.
  • Quasar, Matt and Donna like this

#34 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 06:33 PM

Why does a strictly defensive vehicle intimidate anyone?


  • Mr. Gray likes this

#35 Persona Non Grata

Persona Non Grata

    Commissioner

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,664 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 06:37 PM

 

Clark County deputies got one of the $150,000 vehicles on loan through a surplus program...

 

"On loan" eh?



#36 kelley

kelley

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,126 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 06:59 PM

Why does a strictly defensive vehicle intimidate anyone?


Who said they were intimidated?

#37 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 07:24 PM

http://www.usatoday....rsey/27521793/

"We've seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like they're an occupying force, as opposed

to a force that's part of the community that's protecting them and serving them," Obama said in a speech in Camden,

N.J. Monday. He said military equipment can "alienate and intimidate local residents and may send the wrong message."

And no, the administration IS NOT listening to law enforcement.

There is blowback all over the country from police agencies.

https://www.google.c...achi -pakistan

https://news.google....X17AkYQqgIIITAB


Edited by RiverFox, 05 December 2015 - 08:08 PM.


#38 Mr. Gray

Mr. Gray

    Councilman

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 705 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 07:27 PM

This is worth reading.

 

 

http://www.lencoarmo...mored-vehicles/


Edited by Mr. Gray, 05 December 2015 - 07:28 PM.


#39 RiverFox

RiverFox

    Resident Historian

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,645 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 07:50 PM

From one of the articles sited in GOOGLE above:

That includes tracked armored vehicles, grenade launchers and bayonets, which have been donated through the 1033 program.

Law enforcement agencies who have MRAPs and other wheeled tactical vehicles are able to keep them.

That is just ridiculous.

 

Wheels GOOD ... Tracks BAD ?    :wacko:  

 

... and the grenade launchers are used for CS gas not explosives.

(I don't know why anyone would want a military bayonet ... useless junk)


Edited by RiverFox, 05 December 2015 - 07:57 PM.


#40 Donna

Donna

    Local Legend

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,465 posts

Posted 05 December 2015 - 08:06 PM

Yes, Oldgoat, I have studied and read historical accounts of events.  I'm also aware that facts of skirmishes/wars accounts go predominately to the victors.  Its a bit too much to discuss in depth on a forum, but nice try discounting my perspective because it doesn't align with yours. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users