Obama to ban military surplus gear transfers to local police

[Viligant_Warrior]

Obama announces restrictions on distribution of military-style equipment to police

WASHINGTON – President Obama is banning local police departments from receiving a range of military-style equipment from the federal government -- from grenade launchers to bayonets to certain armored vehicles -- as he implements the recommendations of a panel that examined the controversial gear giveaways in the wake of the Ferguson riots.

TThe White House announced Monday that Washington would no longer provide some military-style gear while putting stricter controls on other weapons and equipment distributed to law enforcement. The details were released as Obama prepares to travel to Camden, N.J., Monday afternoon to meet with youth and law enforcement, and give a speech.

Obama et al is trying to make it look like the local police abuse and misuse the equipment. The simple truth is, police are outgunned by thugs, gangs, and illegals today. They need the extra firepower, they need the extra protection. This is just one more example of his attempt at dictatorship or to foment a descent into anarchy.

 

[dcontroversal]

Obama et al is trying to make it look like the local police abuse and misuse the equipment. The simple truth is, police are outgunned by thugs, gangs, and illegals today. They need the extra firepower, they need the extra protection. This is just one more example of his attempt at dictatorship or to foment a descent into anarchy.

MAYBE because the cops for the most part have made it known they would side with the people if the give goes to disarm us???????

 

[dcontroversal]

MAYBE because the cops for the most part have made it known they would side with the people if the give goes to disarm us???????

correction......if the government goes to disarm us........!

 

[Desdichado]

That gear needs to be taken and allocated where it is needed most- inner cities and the US-Mexico border.

 

[Shadow-THI]

Obama et al is trying to make it look like the local police abuse and misuse the equipment. The simple truth is, police are outgunned by thugs, gangs, and illegals today. They need the extra firepower, they need the extra protection. This is just one more example of his attempt at dictatorship or to foment a descent into anarchy.

A lot of the equipment I read that would be refused access to, was equipment that they would never use anyway, such as grenade launches, tracked vehicles, and weapons over 50 caliber. I am unaware of any agency that has any of these items.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

MAYBE because the cops for the most part have made it known they would side with the people if the give goes to disarm us???????

I would say absolutely that is the case.

A lot of the equipment I read that would be refused access to, was equipment that they would never use anyway, such as grenade launches, tracked vehicles, and weapons over 50 caliber. I am unaware of any agency that has any of these items.

Kansas City, for example, has a tracked vehicle that was developed for the military. Grenade launchers are constantly used -- but for tear gas and pepper bombs, not actual grenades. The equipment being denied them is what they will need in the coming years as this country's descent into chaos continues.

Or perhaps you didn't hear about the two men arrested in Florida after allegedly plotting to attack police there? When they served the warrant, police found 22 firearms, several containers of black powder, bullet proof vests, drugs and drug paraphernalia, as well as evidence they had been attempting to acquire grenades, rockets and their respective launchers.

Yeah, great time for Dumbama to ban the distribution of weapons to local police, huh?

 

[3Scoreand10]

I would say absolutely that is the case.

Kansas City, for example, has a tracked vehicle that was developed for the military. Grenade launchers are constantly used -- but for tear gas and pepper bombs, not actual grenades. The equipment being denied them is what they will need in the coming years as this country's descent into chaos continues.

Or perhaps you didn't hear about the two men arrested in Florida after allegedly plotting to attack police there? When they served the warrant, police found 22 firearms, several containers of black powder, bullet proof vests, drugs and drug paraphernalia, as well as evidence they had been attempting to acquire grenades, rockets and their respective launchers.

Yeah, great time for Dumbama to ban the distribution of weapons to local police, huh?

Wow! DUMBAMA--- I like the new title you gave our fearless leader. It is a perfect fit. Did you coin it? Can I use it?

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Wow! DUMBAMA--- I like the new title you gave our fearless leader. It is a perfect fit. Did you coin it? Can I use it?

It is copyrighted, but consider this my authorization for you to spread its use.

Actually, I can't take credit. I've seen it in numerous "elsewheres," including in an editorial opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal.

 

[TheAristocat]

Obama et al is trying to make it look like the local police abuse and misuse the equipment. The simple truth is, police are outgunned by thugs, gangs, and illegals today. They need the extra firepower, they need the extra protection. This is just one more example of his attempt at dictatorship or to foment a descent into anarchy.

I think Obama has a valid point to make this time. The people of America already distrust the police force. I, myself, have experienced officers' superior and condescending behavior, which itself is unprofessional and an abuse of the authority given them. I feel that equipping such an immature police force with weapons far superior to your own only makes you feel trapped and at the mercy of an arrogant oppressor. Obama's decision has merit in my opinion, because it sets these police officers (civil servants) on a level field with the people they are supposed to serve and protect.

No longer are protesters facing walls of armed soldiers. It may be a bit riskier for police officers, but I think in some cases it will help to ease tensions and keep things from escalating in the future. And that will help to mitigate some of the risk. Our police force is supposed to be a symbol of comfort, protection and service. It's not supposed to strike fear into the hearts of the People or anger them with an excessively belligerent image.

 

[Shadow-THI]

I think Obama has a valid point to make this time. The people of America already distrust the police force. I, myself, have experienced officers' superior and condescending behavior, which itself is unprofessional and an abuse of the authority given them. I feel that equipping such an immature police force with weapons far superior to your own only makes you feel trapped and at the mercy of an arrogant oppressor. Obama's decision has merit in my opinion, because it sets these police officers (civil servants) on a level field with the people they are supposed to serve and protect.

No longer are protesters facing walls of armed soldiers. It may be a bit riskier for police officers, but I think in some cases it will help to ease tensions and keep things from escalating in the future. And that will help to mitigate some of the risk. Our police force is supposed to be a symbol of comfort, protection and service. It's not supposed to strike fear into the hearts of the People or anger them with an excessively belligerent image.

I take it from your post that you walk on the other side of the law, considering your disparaging remarks. You must be well traveled as well, encountering hundreds of thousands of law enforcement personnel in order to make the assertion that, " I, myself, have experienced officers' superior and condescending behavior, which itself is unprofessional and an abuse of the authority given them." More than likely you yourself set the temperature of the encounter judging by your rant. Please be kind enough to enlighten us here, just exactly how an encounter with you should go, including setting the stage as to what precipitated your unfortunate meeting or meetings with all these numerous unworthy officers.

 

[ThomistColin]

Do not arm the police with military equipment. There is a reason why we have a national guard, a military, and a police force which are separate. The police should never be used in military fashion against the citizens of this country, that's what the National Guard is for. National Guard should not be keeping the peace on the streets and investigating crimes, that's what the Police Force is for. And neither of them should be involved in combat on foreign soil, that's what the military is for. The problem is TOO often, man has forgotten why these distinctions were made to begin with, and when we forget, we get reminded.

 

[Shadow-THI]

I would say absolutely that is the case.

Kansas City, for example, has a tracked vehicle that was developed for the military. Grenade launchers are constantly used -- but for tear gas and pepper bombs, not actual grenades. The equipment being denied them is what they will need in the coming years as this country's descent into chaos continues.

Or perhaps you didn't hear about the two men arrested in Florida after allegedly plotting to attack police there? When they served the warrant, police found 22 firearms, several containers of black powder, bullet proof vests, drugs and drug paraphernalia, as well as evidence they had been attempting to acquire grenades, rockets and their respective launchers.

Yeah, great time for Dumbama to ban the distribution of weapons to local police, huh?

I was unaware of the incident in Florida. Thanks for the updated information.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

Do not arm the police with military equipment. There is a reason why we have a national guard, a military, and a police force which are separate. The police should never be used in military fashion against the citizens of this country, that's what the National Guard is for. National Guard should not be keeping the peace on the streets and investigating crimes, that's what the Police Force is for. And neither of them should be involved in combat on foreign soil, that's what the military is for. The problem is TOO often, man has forgotten why these distinctions were made to begin with, and when we forget, we get reminded.

So your solution is to call out the National Guard to battle the street gangs that have the local police outgunned? And why do they have them outgunned? Because the street gangs have grenade launchers, fully automatic weapons, weapons firing ammo of greater than .50 caliber, armor-piercing rounds, etc. In other words, they have all the armament Obama is now going to deny local police departments.

Also, the distinctions are not relative to armament. The distinctions are relevant to the duties of each organization. We have those distinctions to delineate areas of responsibility for each organization. Many nations just have national police forces that has all those duties to themselves, which is the real tool of abuse for potentially corrupt governments. In the U.S., there are too many differing jurisdictions for a government to command all of them.

And that is the real reason, in my opinion, Obama wants to remove heavy armament from local police. If he does indeed intend to pull some kind of martial law declaration before next year's elections -- and I don't know that he will or that he won't -- he knows local police will not stand with him, by and large. They will, in fact, be part of the army that rises up against him.

 

[TheAristocat]

I take it from your post that you walk on the other side of the law, considering your disparaging remarks. You must be well traveled as well, encountering hundreds of thousands of law enforcement personnel in order to make the assertion that, " I, myself, have experienced officers' superior and condescending behavior, which itself is unprofessional and an abuse of the authority given them." More than likely you yourself set the temperature of the encounter judging by your rant. Please be kind enough to enlighten us here, just exactly how an encounter with you should go, including setting the stage as to what precipitated your unfortunate meeting or meetings with all these numerous unworthy officers.

I feel it would be a waste of our time. If you feel that my point is invalid, I must assume that your life experiences have taught you otherwise. There are good police officers, and there are bad police officers. But equipping both groups of police officers with military armament that is far superior to anything a civilian can reasonably carry and transport was the main point of my post.

I personally feel that if police officers are not willing to risk their life and limb to protect their fellow citizens, then they should not be in the police force, as enforcing the law entails some amount of risk. But I also feel that the protection of our civil liberties such as the right to bear arms (not being infringed without due process) is at times a worthier cause than safety. And I feel that it could not in all fairness to the spirit of that law be upheld if we are giving special privilege to government officials to acquire these arms while restricting (i.e. infringing upon) their access to the general population. In closing...

"We cannot trust ourselves with firearms, so we should only trust the government with those dangerous weapons," said no conservative ever.

 

[Viligant_Warrior]

I think Obama has a valid point to make this time.

Perhaps if he wears a hat, no one will notice.

The people of America already distrust the police force.

The liberal Huffington Post-YouGov poll in April proves you're going on your own self perception of the level of trust in the police, not facts.

Poll Results: Law Enforcement

Isn't it interesting that even the DEA and CIA get a majority or near majority of trust? That doesn't jibe well with your opinion, does it?

I, myself, have experienced officers' superior and condescending behavior, which itself is unprofessional and an abuse of the authority given them.

Thus proving my point about your built-in bias.

No longer are protesters facing walls of armed soldiers.

They never have, and if you think this is going to mean police officers will no longer keep protestors in line while wearing full body armor and carrying bullet-resistant shields, you're grossly mistaken.

It may be a bit riskier for police officers ...

And I take it from your attitude toward police that is just fine with you. You don't mind that it will be -- actually, already is -- open season on police officers. We can therefore safely dismiss your opinion as a near-anarchist rant.

 

[Shadow-THI]

I feel it would be a waste of our time. If you feel that my point is invalid, I must assume that your life experiences have taught you otherwise. There are good police officers, and there are bad police officers. But equipping both groups of police officers with military armament that is far superior to anything a civilian can reasonably carry and transport was the main point of my post.

I personally feel that if police officers are not willing to risk their life and limb to protect their fellow citizens, then they should not be in the police force, as enforcing the law entails some amount of risk. But I also feel that the protection of our civil liberties such as the right to bear arms (not being infringed without due process) is at times a worthier cause than safety. And I feel that it could not in all fairness to the spirit of that law be upheld if we are giving special privilege to government officials to acquire these arms while restricting (i.e. infringing upon) their access to the general population. In closing...

"We cannot trust ourselves with firearms, so we should only trust the government with those dangerous weapons," said no conservative ever.

Your response had nothing to do with the question I posed to you. So re-read my OP and try to stay on point with my question to you, unless your are intentionally avoiding a response. If that's the case then I well understand that your OP was nothing more than unadulterated "HOG WASH."