Yup, and it ain't the cops fault an M-16 costs $35,000. Hopefully that will change someday though.
M-16's are fun for awhile, but even with a borrowed rifle, free ammo and someone to load magazines they lose their thrill quickly.
Yup, and it ain't the cops fault an M-16 costs $35,000. Hopefully that will change someday though.
And I can't provide those. My google-fu is weak, perhaps, or it may simply be that the first SWAT (LAPD) predates the commercial internet by nearly 3 decades (and the crack epidemic predated it by a decade or so) and the information I'm remembering just isn't out there.There would be situations where that would be the best way in. Would have to know the totality of the the circumstances.
M-16's are fun for awhile, but even with a borrowed rifle, free ammo and someone to load magazines they lose their thrill quickly.
And I can't provide those. My google-fu is weak, perhaps, or it may simply be that the first SWAT (LAPD) predates the commercial internet by nearly 3 decades (and the crack epidemic predated it by a decade or so) and the information I'm remembering just isn't out there.
Consider my cite of "possible cases of offensive mis-use" retracted since I can't back it up.
OK, hot shot, explain to me why? There is nothing in the Constitution that says that, nor is it a law anywhere.
OK, hot shot, explain to me why? There is nothing in the Constitution that says that, nor is it a law anywhere.
I've been in very few drug houses during my life. (More than I'd like, but still only a few.) Thus, while I've seen some of this stuff up close I certainly don't know all the tricks. Pictures would be welcome.When i get to a computer i will post some pics of drug houses that brick up the doorways, and ...
I've been in very few drug houses during my life. (More than I'd like, but still only a few.) Thus, while I've seen some of this stuff up close I certainly don't know all the tricks. Pictures would be welcome.
... are you real?
This is possibly the worst post I've ever read on this forum.
But to your question and original statement.
The 2A says the the citizens should be able to be as well seems as the police or military. If you say it a different way it would be "the police and military should not be more armed than the people.
The answer is not to disarm the police force, it is to remove the BS infringements on the 2A.
Hope that's not too hair brained for ya. But I believe that's where they were coming from also.
Sorry, but I can't agree with your interpretation of the 2A. Nowhere does it limit the level the government can be armed...
I never said it did. Read my post again and you will see what I'm saying... Maybe.
If there can be no limits on what civilians can own, the the gov can not be more armed than the people.
OK, but in the context of this discussion, some are still saying the 2A can be an argument for limiting the capabilities/weaponry of the police?
I still don't buy it, nor have I heard a compelling argument from those against it...
No, you have it backwards... "hot shot" was lamenting the fact that civilians are restricted more than law enforcement. That double standard shouldn't exist. Newly manufactured select fire guns for everyone!OK, but in the context of this discussion, some are still saying the 2A can be an argument for limiting the capabilities/weaponry of the police?
Is this what you were looking for?IIRC, when LAPD got their first APC some numbnuts got the inspiration to put a giant steel pole on the front, tipped with a large steel plate. They used it as a battering ram to enter crack houses. Again going just from memory, they managed to screw up a few times and knock down whole walls and partially collapse buildings, causing a number of unnecessary civilian casualties.
I'll do some googling and see if I can come up with any relevant links. Who knows? Maybe I'm remembering some nonsense out of Sheriff Joe A's jurisdiction.
Your response is about as useless as I've heard. Step up and provide some reasoning...