Geetrue, the agencies keep their previous names. TSA, ICE, FEMA, NSA. Together they make up the DHS.

I didn't mean it as a organized entity planning it all. As you say this has been going on for decades. I don't buy the theory that some shadowy group of puppet masters could be pulling our strings for all those years in secret.


No, giving an armored assault capability to a federal police force is not part of some dark conspiracy. But it is just one more thing that a future tyrant could use to oppress us. I question the need for it. We already have those capabilities at the state and even the local level. Do we really need the Feds rolling armored vehicles too?

Thank you for opening my eyes ... I'm reading about them right now and it's not easy to understand what I have always taken for granted in those two words "Homeland Security"

This was from Steelheads link:


I get tired easy and it made me realize how much reading ya'll have to do that work for DHS ...

Why would anyone want to read what's on the NYT best sellers list after having to work for a DHS all week?

Time to organize them like they do on FBM's with two crews blue and gold ...

perhaps X amount days on and X amount of days off to save a buck or two plus use less personel and get more work done.

Thank you August by making fun of DHS you have opened my eyes

I have to go back to reading now ...

did you know they have a new DHS building planned for 2021 in the works?

When I first saw the post, I thought it was DHL, aka, the courier guys....

Question for any former/current military or law enforcement individuals (Americans) here:
If you were given the order to pull the trigger on your fellow American citizens, would you?
Edit:
And how many of your fellow soldiers would have?

It is one thing to have such things,, it is another to keep them, they will have to be park some where, and if and when things go south, that's where the food, water, fuel, ammo and weapons will be like a regular post ahpopoliptic georcery store, a regular fort apache have a good time stepping upon peoples liberty remeber there will be more have nots than haves..the last thing I would want to deal with is a angery and hungery mob...

More information is needed to answer this question.

A US citizen may decide to rob a bank and then he may murder or attempt to murder another US citizen in that case I would pull the trigger on such a person.Or he may become a threat to the people and join an organization that is a threat to the people and/or the Constitution in that case i would pull the trigger on that person if violence where the only recourse.

The oath sworn states that you will defend the people from any enemy foreign or domestic. A threat to the people to the Constitution can come from outside or within. In other words if the order given is constitutional and valid and just then the trigger shall be pulled.

Honestly I cant say on the second part there a many different people in the military and views vary greatly some are very conservative some are liberal others have no interest in politics.In my experience the political make up armed forces members is as varied as it is in the general population.

I think you answered it sufficiently. From reading your answer, it sounds like you'd actually think before pulling the trigger, and not just fire blindly at anyone the government pointed you at.

From reading certain posts here, I was under the impression that anyone with a government issued gun was just waiting to start killing people on the government's orders.

It could depend on the individual person though to some extent a person may swear one thing but their integrity may be weak but the goal of the oath is to insure that those in a government position uphold the Constitution.

In theory this prevents a situation where a leader garbs total control from ever happening because those who are to carry out those orders would refuse to obey one that violated the Constitution.

Things have been done many times that in some way where violating the Constitution though.An often ignored example would be Richard Nixon's secret war in Cambodia.

It was members of the military that blew the whistle on this and reported it to Congress.Of course these military officers had been given orders from elsewhere which means that other military members had given these orders even though they where unlawful and not approved by Congress(a war) and where essentially ordering a mission and then having the record of that mission destroyed as soon as the aircrew landed.

Of course Nixon did not nearly get impeached for this violation of office but over a different violation.

You could say that there is a check and balance so to speak when it comes to the "pull the trigger order" on a mass scale such a thing would not fly with those compelled to obey their is a stipulation(does it violate the Constitution and the sworn oath to uphold it)

Now those guys NEED armoured cars. :O:

The thing is you're not talking about the military but an agency. A much smaller and far more easily subverted organization.

I would argue that the larger an agency/organization becomes the more more likely it is to be subverted.The truth is no matter what kind of law a nation has power can be taken if a person or group so desires.

Humans are corruptible by nature to some extent and therefore it is possible for any organization to be corrupted.The only form of government safe from this is no government at all... anarchy.

I don't see how. The larger the organization the more dissenting opinions that one would have to deal with. The military is hundreds of thousands of people. A federal agency is a few hundred agents.

Desire means little unless the mechanics are in place to carry it out. Giving federal law enforcement agencies armored assault capability, in essence creating a mini-army, is just one more step in that direction. Why is this even necessary? The National Guard should have such vehicles available for use if law enforcement needs to use them.

No such thing. No matter how completely any social system breaks down some type of replacement will quickly manifest itself for no other reason that it increases the survival chances of it's members. Humanity 101. Organize or die.

A definition of anarchy is a state of society without government or law.

I simply stated that the situation where corruption of a government in part or whole is ensured not to occur is in a state of anarchy.


If a person wishes to gain power in a tyrannical manner they must in some way legitimatize them selves to a portion of the population they wish to control.If they are in a land that has a government then their means is to corruptly alter things to their will.I am not saying that anarchy is ideal people need to have some control in their lives.

There are Army National Guard units that have M1A1 even A2 Abrams tanks I am pretty sure that they can handle any DHS armored car.There are Air National Guard units flying A-10s they can destroy any DHS armored car.Every NG unit that has infantry is going to have some AT-4s in the armory those can destroy armored cars.

http://www.idaho.ang.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123325417
http://www.175wg.ang.af.mil/resources/
http://www.minnesotanationalguard.or...php?unit=PSSC2
http://www.nationalguard.mil/news/ar...nks-print.aspx

You miss the point.

If the local NG already has these vehicles, or better ones, then those are what DHS ought to be using. They shouldn't have their own.