Trump prepares to lift limits on military gear for police

[Marion Morrison]

I decided very few police need that stuff (SWAT only) when they tossed a flashbang into a baby's crib over a dime bag of pot. (Which I used to turn every day in order to afford a 2nd school lunch).

The baby is scarred for life.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you?

I mean, what if the police are doing bad things? What if the govt is doing bad things? What if you're attacking people who's views go against what the country is about?

There are lots of things here, there's no straight answer, especially labeling certain people you don't like as the enemy simply because they oppose what you think should be done.

No, I label them the enemy when they act outside of our laws.

So what if those acting outside of the laws are the very people you support? Or what if the people who make the laws legitimize those things which shouldn't be legitimate?

Legitimize like what? Should we make it legal to attack our police officers? Should we make it legal to not obey the commands of a police officer? Make it legal to destroy public and private property? Make it legal to close down roads to protest?

If somebody on our side acts outside of our laws, they too deserve whatever our authority decides to do to them. But since 98% of the problems in these protests are from the left, it wouldn't bother me all that much.

Legitimize like what?

Okay, campaign funding. When Africans do it, they shout that it's corruption, when Americans do it they say it's campaign financing or something like that.

No, it should not be legal to attack anyone. But it is legal in some circumstances.

What happens if a police officer tells you to kill yourself? Should it be illegal to not obey the commands of that officer?

Let's go back to the Civil Rights' movement. What happens when the people with power are white and they make it illegal for black people to do things. Is it okay to fight back? Is it okay to break those laws?

Were those who fought against discriminatory laws "the enemy"?

Wait a minute, when is attacking somebody justified? Self-defense is justified, but never attacking somebody. I'm a black belt and a CCW holder, and this is the first I ever heard about justified attacks on another human being.

And what do you mean by when blacks fund campaigns, it's corruption? I have no idea WTF you're even talking about. Who ever said that? Have any examples?

Why do you leftists always go back in time to make a point instead of talking about the present? There is no comparison to civil rights to lowlifes attacking our police and adversaries because all the good people want to stay within the law and they don't.

Well that depends on how you consider attack. Executions are attacks. They're legal.

I didn't say anything about "blacks fund campaigns", I said in Africa. So I can see why you have no idea what I'm talking about if you can't even read what I wrote (again).

But I'll try and explain. The whole idea of democracy is that the people have a vote and the representatives then represent the voters somehow in order to get re-elected. However when you have people like the Koch brothers, among others, throwing cash everywhere and literally paying politicians to do their bidding for cash, which is then spent on paying for that politician to be re-elected, then you have corruption. However it's not called corruption. It's legitimized. In Africa when people use money to take money out of the system, it's called corruption. Leaders who stay in power and do whatever they like are called corrupt. But the Koch brothers, among others, can't be kicked out of power, just like African dictators can't be kicked out of power.

"Why do you leftists always go back in time to make a point instead of talking about the present? "

Do you want me to be frank Ray? The simple answer to this is because I'm not fucking stupid. It's because I understand how to make points and to back my points up with EVIDENCE. I do understand that a lot of people have a hard time understanding how to make a legitimate point, they look at the media and get pissy because the media doesn't say what they want them to say, but fucking hell Ray, what I'm doing is making a point and BACKING THE FUCKING THING UP. I can't believe that you're attacking me for backing up a point. You reach new lows every fucking time I talk to you.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

No, I label them the enemy when they act outside of our laws.

So what if those acting outside of the laws are the very people you support? Or what if the people who make the laws legitimize those things which shouldn't be legitimate?

Legitimize like what? Should we make it legal to attack our police officers? Should we make it legal to not obey the commands of a police officer? Make it legal to destroy public and private property? Make it legal to close down roads to protest?

If somebody on our side acts outside of our laws, they too deserve whatever our authority decides to do to them. But since 98% of the problems in these protests are from the left, it wouldn't bother me all that much.

Legitimize like what?

Okay, campaign funding. When Africans do it, they shout that it's corruption, when Americans do it they say it's campaign financing or something like that.

No, it should not be legal to attack anyone. But it is legal in some circumstances.

What happens if a police officer tells you to kill yourself? Should it be illegal to not obey the commands of that officer?

Let's go back to the Civil Rights' movement. What happens when the people with power are white and they make it illegal for black people to do things. Is it okay to fight back? Is it okay to break those laws?

Were those who fought against discriminatory laws "the enemy"?

Wait a minute, when is attacking somebody justified? Self-defense is justified, but never attacking somebody. I'm a black belt and a CCW holder, and this is the first I ever heard about justified attacks on another human being.

And what do you mean by when blacks fund campaigns, it's corruption? I have no idea WTF you're even talking about. Who ever said that? Have any examples?

Why do you leftists always go back in time to make a point instead of talking about the present? There is no comparison to civil rights to lowlifes attacking our police and adversaries because all the good people want to stay within the law and they don't.

Well that depends on how you consider attack. Executions are attacks. They're legal.

I didn't say anything about "blacks fund campaigns", I said in Africa. So I can see why you have no idea what I'm talking about if you can't even read what I wrote (again).

But I'll try and explain. The whole idea of democracy is that the people have a vote and the representatives then represent the voters somehow in order to get re-elected. However when you have people like the Koch brothers, among others, throwing cash everywhere and literally paying politicians to do their bidding for cash, which is then spent on paying for that politician to be re-elected, then you have corruption. However it's not called corruption. It's legitimized. In Africa when people use money to take money out of the system, it's called corruption. Leaders who stay in power and do whatever they like are called corrupt. But the Koch brothers, among others, can't be kicked out of power, just like African dictators can't be kicked out of power.

"Why do you leftists always go back in time to make a point instead of talking about the present? "

Do you want me to be frank Ray? The simple answer to this is because I'm not fucking stupid. It's because I understand how to make points and to back my points up with EVIDENCE. I do understand that a lot of people have a hard time understanding how to make a legitimate point, they look at the media and get pissy because the media doesn't say what they want them to say, but fucking hell Ray, what I'm doing is making a point and BACKING THE FUCKING THING UP. I can't believe that you're attacking me for backing up a point. You reach new lows every fucking time I talk to you.

Look.......do you want to talk about current situations in the US or not? I don't GAF about Africa. If you want to talk about Africa, start a topic on it. This topic is about military gear for our police IN THE US!!!!!

Executions are not an attack. Executions are a legal penalty decided by a jury and a judge. Political contributions are on both sides. Ever hear of George Soros? Ever hear of unions? Ever hear of Hollywood or trial lawyers? Ever hear of a guy named Warren Buffet?

Civil rights and other protests you wish to go back to were at a time when there was antiquated communications. It was virtually the only way for people to be heard. That's unnecessary today. Today you have cable TV, today you have email, today you have social media, today you have investigative reporting, today you have the internet. There is no need to protest or start riots today unless the only reason you have is to start trouble. And because people are only out on the streets to start trouble, our police need any means to combat that trouble by the left.

 

[frigidweirdo]

So what if those acting outside of the laws are the very people you support? Or what if the people who make the laws legitimize those things which shouldn't be legitimate?

Legitimize like what? Should we make it legal to attack our police officers? Should we make it legal to not obey the commands of a police officer? Make it legal to destroy public and private property? Make it legal to close down roads to protest?

If somebody on our side acts outside of our laws, they too deserve whatever our authority decides to do to them. But since 98% of the problems in these protests are from the left, it wouldn't bother me all that much.

Legitimize like what?

Okay, campaign funding. When Africans do it, they shout that it's corruption, when Americans do it they say it's campaign financing or something like that.

No, it should not be legal to attack anyone. But it is legal in some circumstances.

What happens if a police officer tells you to kill yourself? Should it be illegal to not obey the commands of that officer?

Let's go back to the Civil Rights' movement. What happens when the people with power are white and they make it illegal for black people to do things. Is it okay to fight back? Is it okay to break those laws?

Were those who fought against discriminatory laws "the enemy"?

Wait a minute, when is attacking somebody justified? Self-defense is justified, but never attacking somebody. I'm a black belt and a CCW holder, and this is the first I ever heard about justified attacks on another human being.

And what do you mean by when blacks fund campaigns, it's corruption? I have no idea WTF you're even talking about. Who ever said that? Have any examples?

Why do you leftists always go back in time to make a point instead of talking about the present? There is no comparison to civil rights to lowlifes attacking our police and adversaries because all the good people want to stay within the law and they don't.

Well that depends on how you consider attack. Executions are attacks. They're legal.

I didn't say anything about "blacks fund campaigns", I said in Africa. So I can see why you have no idea what I'm talking about if you can't even read what I wrote (again).

But I'll try and explain. The whole idea of democracy is that the people have a vote and the representatives then represent the voters somehow in order to get re-elected. However when you have people like the Koch brothers, among others, throwing cash everywhere and literally paying politicians to do their bidding for cash, which is then spent on paying for that politician to be re-elected, then you have corruption. However it's not called corruption. It's legitimized. In Africa when people use money to take money out of the system, it's called corruption. Leaders who stay in power and do whatever they like are called corrupt. But the Koch brothers, among others, can't be kicked out of power, just like African dictators can't be kicked out of power.

"Why do you leftists always go back in time to make a point instead of talking about the present? "

Do you want me to be frank Ray? The simple answer to this is because I'm not fucking stupid. It's because I understand how to make points and to back my points up with EVIDENCE. I do understand that a lot of people have a hard time understanding how to make a legitimate point, they look at the media and get pissy because the media doesn't say what they want them to say, but fucking hell Ray, what I'm doing is making a point and BACKING THE FUCKING THING UP. I can't believe that you're attacking me for backing up a point. You reach new lows every fucking time I talk to you.

Look.......do you want to talk about current situations in the US or not? I don't GAF about Africa. If you want to talk about Africa, start a topic on it. This topic is about military gear for our police IN THE US!!!!!

Executions are not an attack. Executions are a legal penalty decided by a jury and a judge. Political contributions are on both sides. Ever hear of George Soros? Ever hear of unions? Ever hear of Hollywood or trial lawyers? Ever hear of a guy named Warren Buffet?

Civil rights and other protests you wish to go back to were at a time when there was antiquated communications. It was virtually the only way for people to be heard. That's unnecessary today. Today you have cable TV, today you have email, today you have social media, today you have investigative reporting, today you have the internet. There is no need to protest or start riots today unless the only reason you have is to start trouble. And because people are only out on the streets to start trouble, our police need any means to combat that trouble by the left.

Yes Ray, and in talking about the present, you can look back at the past to see how things work.

Seemingly what you're doing Ray, is finding things that are inconvenient and then coming up with a tactic designed to stop that inconvenience from impacting your argument. Sorry Ray, you talk to me you talk to me in the present which is impacted by the past, and based on the reality that history repeats itself, and to understand things you need to look at the past.

Look Ray, I couldn't give a fuck if you never learned how to make an argument properly, but I did. If you have a problem talking to people who make arguments and back them up, I'm sure there are plenty of fuckheads who will do it in the way of morons and idiots. But that's not me, okay. So choose.

Executions ARE an attack Ray. And your argument as to why they're not goes back to them being legal. Just because something is legal doesn't stop it being an attack Ray. It's like saying this biscuit isn't a biscuit because it's Thursday.

You can have a group of people decide to make an attack. Just because they're a judge and jury doesn't stop it being an attack. It's clearly not self defense, is it? So it must be an attack. If I were to kill someone in the same manner as an execution I would be hunted down by the police for it. Why? Because I attacked someone.

I didn't say political contributions weren't on both sides Ray. So why you brought this up, I have no fucking idea. What, exactly, does this have to do with this conversation?

Ray, the Civil Rights movement was at a time of limited communications. But the Constitution is still the same Constitution. In the modern world it's still difficult for people to be heard. I've been on political forums like this for 20 something years and yet the media has ignored me completely and utterly. Not that I care.

The media did NOT ignore those protesters. Nothing much has changed Ray, the more communications we have, the more we have to sift through it all and the more we ignore things. We're still acting like the 1960s with limited media. The right have one TV news show, Fox News. Why so limited? Because it's easier that way, rather than having to make choices.

Protest is still protest, it's still protected by the Constitution and you're saying that protest makes you the enemy of the state (or at least the state as you think it should be).

If something was right in the 1960s, why is it wrong today?

There is no need? Well there is no need to have guns in the modern era either. There's no need to have TV in fact, we have the internet, you can watch programs on your computer. There's no need for lots of things, like lights with different voltage, or with special colors. We're not talking about NEED here Ray, we're talking about RIGHTS>

 

[FA_Q2]

This was one of the few things that I agreed with Obama on. The fact is that local officials have abused and misused the equipment for non-violent crimes. This fits into Trump's authoritarian streak. Trump is a cheap two-bit thug.

Well you have two options: Donate worn-out surplus military equipment to local American law-enforcement agencies, or do like Obama did:

Leave it behind in Iraq so ISIS can use it against us.

Or would you rather see it all melted down to make swing sets and slides for inner-city hood rats? That would seem to me like a waste of perfectly-awesome military equipment.

The military is geared to accomplish 2 things - Kill the enemy and break their shit. The equipment they use is designed and used for that purpose.

The police have a fundamentally different role to play. That is why the military should not be used as a police force - they are piss poor police and the police are piss poor soldiers. Keeping the peace and enforcing the law is has almost nothing in common with military needs and moving equipment from the military to the police does noting but encourage the police to become more like military and less like the PEACE officers that they are supposed to be.

I'm all for giving police anything they need to do their jobs and stay safe. If they need a tank to mow down these lowlifes at riots, give them a tank and happy mowing to them.

I know, we should be following the examples of other great nations like:

I am all for giving them the tools to be safe as well. The reality is that military equipment is NOT about being safe - it is about making you into an efficient killer.

 

[FA_Q2]

This was one of the few things that I agreed with Obama on. The fact is that local officials have abused and misused the equipment for non-violent crimes. This fits into Trump's authoritarian streak. Trump is a cheap two-bit thug.

Well you have two options: Donate worn-out surplus military equipment to local American law-enforcement agencies, or do like Obama did:

Leave it behind in Iraq so ISIS can use it against us.

Or would you rather see it all melted down to make swing sets and slides for inner-city hood rats? That would seem to me like a waste of perfectly-awesome military equipment.

The military is geared to accomplish 2 things - Kill the enemy and break their shit. The equipment they use is designed and used for that purpose.

The police have a fundamentally different role to play. That is why the military should not be used as a police force - they are piss poor police and the police are piss poor soldiers. Keeping the peace and enforcing the law is has almost nothing in common with military needs and moving equipment from the military to the police does noting but encourage the police to become more like military and less like the PEACE officers that they are supposed to be.

They are called 'Law Enforcement Officers' for a good reason asshole!

Yes they are - because they enforce the law.

Soldiers do not enforce anything at all - they kill the enemy. You do not seem to understand that reality.

 

[K9Buck]

This was one of the few things that I agreed with Obama on. The fact is that local officials have abused and misused the equipment for non-violent crimes. This fits into Trump's authoritarian streak. Trump is a cheap two-bit thug.

Well you have two options: Donate worn-out surplus military equipment to local American law-enforcement agencies, or do like Obama did:

Leave it behind in Iraq so ISIS can use it against us.

Or would you rather see it all melted down to make swing sets and slides for inner-city hood rats? That would seem to me like a waste of perfectly-awesome military equipment.

The military is geared to accomplish 2 things - Kill the enemy and break their shit. The equipment they use is designed and used for that purpose.

The police have a fundamentally different role to play. That is why the military should not be used as a police force - they are piss poor police and the police are piss poor soldiers. Keeping the peace and enforcing the law is has almost nothing in common with military needs and moving equipment from the military to the police does noting but encourage the police to become more like military and less like the PEACE officers that they are supposed to be.

I'm all for giving police anything they need to do their jobs and stay safe. If they need a tank to mow down these lowlifes at riots, give them a tank and happy mowing to them.

I know, we should be following the examples of other great nations like:

I am all for giving them the tools to be safe as well. The reality is that military equipment is NOT about being safe - it is about making you into an efficient killer.

Armored vehicles protect police and citizens from armed criminals.

 

[Marion Morrison]

Law enforcement officers don't "protect and serve" anymore, they just enforce the law.

 

[K9Buck]

Law enforcement officers don't "protect and serve" anymore, they just enforce the law.

They certainly don't "protect and serve" when Democratic mayor and governors in places like Baltimore and Charlottesville tell them to stand down.

 

[K9Buck]

Liberals, should police officers carry guns?

 

[busybee01]

You said you wanted fascist nazis but you're about to learn its the opposite of 2nd Amendment rights. He said he wants a police state and thanks to the dumb ass RWNJs, he'll get it.

When did Trump ever say he wanted a police state?

Sorry but the tides have turned. We went from and anti-police President to a pro-police President. Elections have consequences you know...........

The fact is that we are putting people's lives at risk. Police departments have abused the privilege by using this equipment in non-violent circumstances. You apparently don't care if innocent people die. There needs to be strict regulation on how this equipment is used.

Well I don't have to worry about it. Do you know why? Because I never get in a confrontational situation with police. I don't worry about my friends or family either. Do you know why? Because none of them ever get in a confrontational situation with police.

You don't have to get into a confrontation. SWAT teams were designed for hostage situations yet they are being used to do mundane things like serving warrants. When you have that equipment it has a effect of causing peaceful things to turn violent.

No, when you have that equipment it gives your suspect less reason to attack because he knows he can't do anything to you.

Our police deserve the best protection and equipment we can afford to give them.

We need to de-militarize the police. It emboldens the police to be more aggressive and endangers citizens.

 

[busybee01]

Hmmmmm. Isn't it funny how police departments being allowed to use what they need to combat crime became a political issue? The left are against a stronger police force and the right are for it. Now gee, why in the world would that be? Could it be that most criminals are liberals?

This is not a right vs left issue as you want to make it. The police do not need tanks or anti-mine vehicles. The fact is that we have seen the results of the militarization of police officers. Gestapo tactics being used against peaceful and non-violent people and demonstrators. Fascist thugs like you need to be deported.

 

[busybee01]

I decided very few police need that stuff (SWAT only) when they tossed a flashbang into a baby's crib over a dime bag of pot. (Which I used to turn every day in order to afford a 2nd school lunch).

The baby is scarred for life.

The trouble is that SWAT teams were originally developed for dangerous situations like hostage takings. Today they do the most mundane things like serving warrants on non-violent offenders. Also the tactics that the police are being trained in is military style tactics. These tactics are being employed against American citizens rather that terrorists. That is why that situation occurred. Also worth noting that the police have refused to apologize over the situation.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Hmmmmm. Isn't it funny how police departments being allowed to use what they need to combat crime became a political issue? The left are against a stronger police force and the right are for it. Now gee, why in the world would that be? Could it be that most criminals are liberals?

This is not a right vs left issue as you want to make it. The police do not need tanks or anti-mine vehicles. The fact is that we have seen the results of the militarization of police officers. Gestapo tactics being used against peaceful and non-violent people and demonstrators. Fascist thugs like you need to be deported.

Now that's your typical commie response. "If you don't think like a liberal, you need to be removed from the country."

No, I think it's liberals that should be removed from the country. There is only one place for conservatives in the world, and that is the USA. For Socialist/ Communist types, there are all kinds of utopias for you people to move to. Besides, if we could get rid of Democrats in our country, my property value would double overnight and we could start repaying the US debt.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

When did Trump ever say he wanted a police state?

Sorry but the tides have turned. We went from and anti-police President to a pro-police President. Elections have consequences you know...........

The fact is that we are putting people's lives at risk. Police departments have abused the privilege by using this equipment in non-violent circumstances. You apparently don't care if innocent people die. There needs to be strict regulation on how this equipment is used.

Well I don't have to worry about it. Do you know why? Because I never get in a confrontational situation with police. I don't worry about my friends or family either. Do you know why? Because none of them ever get in a confrontational situation with police.

You don't have to get into a confrontation. SWAT teams were designed for hostage situations yet they are being used to do mundane things like serving warrants. When you have that equipment it has a effect of causing peaceful things to turn violent.

No, when you have that equipment it gives your suspect less reason to attack because he knows he can't do anything to you.

Our police deserve the best protection and equipment we can afford to give them.

We need to de-militarize the police. It emboldens the police to be more aggressive and endangers citizens.

Good. Because they are not aggressive enough with lowlifes. Time to put fear in lawbreakers so they stop attacking people and destroying property.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Fascism is on the move when leaders encourage the police to start treating the populace like an enemy.

And what's on the move when mainstream culture encourages the populace to treat the police like an enemy?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Law enforcement officers don't "protect and serve" anymore, they just enforce the law.

Enforcing the law is protecting the people.

 

[K9Buck]

Fascism is on the move when leaders encourage the police to start treating the populace like an enemy.

And what's on the move when mainstream culture encourages the populace to treat the police like an enemy?

Or the president (Obama) of the United States.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Fascism is on the move when leaders encourage the police to start treating the populace like an enemy.

And what's on the move when mainstream culture encourages the populace to treat the police like an enemy?

Or the president (Obama) of the United States.

Lol, at what point did mainstream culture encourage any such thing? Only Fox News, Breitbart, and a small host of internet publications that nobody takes seriously who doesn't share their ideology were ever particularly critical of President Obama. If you think that Republican politics define our mainstream culture, you don't get out much.

 

[K9Buck]

Fascism is on the move when leaders encourage the police to start treating the populace like an enemy.

And what's on the move when mainstream culture encourages the populace to treat the police like an enemy?

Or the president (Obama) of the United States.

Lol, at what point did mainstream culture encourage any such thing? Only Fox News, Breitbart, and a small host of internet publications that nobody takes seriously who doesn't share their ideology were ever particularly critical of President Obama. If you think that Republican politics define our mainstream culture, you don't get out much.

On the contrary. BLM members and supporters frequently called for the murder of cops and some of them followed through on it. Obama spent 8 years being critical (and being wrong) on various incidents regarding police. Do you remember the DNC convention wherein they had a "Mothers of dead black criminals" celebration? The left has been demonizing law-enforcement for many years now. Where have you been?