DHS buying armored cars

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by razark

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 would also depend on the circumstances.

If out of the blue, the POTUS says "Hey! shoot those Americans", I would have a hard time determining whether that is a legal order.

On the other hand, if we have Americans engaged in violent acts against citizens; if they are trying to overthrow our government through violent and unconstitutional ways; if my orders are to secure an area against hostile forces, and I get the order to shoot Americans, I would follow my orders and shoot the violent offenders.

At least I hope I would. In my military career, I was never ordered to shoot Americans, but I was put in many situations where, in safeguarding nuclear material, I had the authorization to protect the material from any unauthorized people. Since I was in Utah at the time, I don't think they were concerned with the ruskies, but from Americans.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

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?

Your are naturally assuming these are for fed use only. Feds pay for roads as well. Have for decades. Part of the master plan to use these armored vehicles? As for one more thing to oppress us...armored vehicles have been available to all law enforcement agencies and the fed for decades. Have you been oppressed at any time? Has anyone suggested(other than the loons on the internet) that these vehicles will be used to oppress some guy in CT? Future tyrant? Have we seen on these shores a tyrant running the country? Feds do roll around in armored vehicles. Normally these a black in color. Look like Chevy Blazers or Cadillacs. Sometimes these vehicles are followed by black helicopters. These vehicle have been around for a long time because there are some very real threats out there. Being vigilant has multiplied exponentially since 9/11. Let's face it, we were standing there with our pants down. Now that the DHS is working on securing the country, working towards a more effective FEMA and attempting to get organized within yet a red flag goes up because of these activities. If a natural disaster of large proportions were to occur requiring thousands of Rubber Main coffins immediately, yet FEMA could not provide timely, there would be a outcry. Can't have it both ways. Luck favors the prepared.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Platapus

On the other hand, if we have Americans engaged in violent acts against citizens; if they are trying to overthrow our government through violent and unconstitutional ways; if my orders are to secure an area against hostile forces, and I get the order to shoot Americans, I would follow my orders and shoot the violent offenders.

I would be inclined to believe the Americans demonstrating violent acts and attempting to overthrow the government are no longer citizens. These individuals are now subject to deadly force as a result of their actions.

Peaceful demonstrations are permitted. We have seen many peaceful demonstrations.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

I would be inclined to believe the Americans demonstrating violent acts and attempting to overthrow the government are no longer citizens.

It takes a lot for the government to revoke citizenship of native born Americans. That does, and should always, take a lot of legal review.

So in my opinion, these individuals would still be citizens, just criminals.

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.

Why does the navy have helicopters, they should use the army ones, why does the airforce have trucks, they can use the armys too. Why is there even a marine corps, surely the navy can borrow troops from the army and do away with the whole seperate branch and all their seperate equipment.
Makes as much sense as Augusts line doesn't it.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by Platapus

It takes a lot for the government to revoke citizenship of native born Americans. That does, and should always, take a lot of legal review.

So in my opinion, these individuals would still be citizens, just criminals.

Yes, criminals.

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

Your are naturally assuming these are for fed use only. Feds pay for roads as well. Have for decades. Part of the master plan to use these armored vehicles? As for one more thing to oppress us...armored vehicles have been available to all law enforcement agencies and the fed for decades. Have you been oppressed at any time? Has anyone suggested(other than the loons on the internet) that these vehicles will be used to oppress some guy in CT? Future tyrant? Have we seen on these shores a tyrant running the country? Feds do roll around in armored vehicles. Normally these a black in color. Look like Chevy Blazers or Cadillacs. Sometimes these vehicles are followed by black helicopters. These vehicle have been around for a long time because there are some very real threats out there. Being vigilant has multiplied exponentially since 9/11. Let's face it, we were standing there with our pants down. Now that the DHS is working on securing the country, working towards a more effective FEMA and attempting to get organized within yet a red flag goes up because of these activities. If a natural disaster of large proportions were to occur requiring thousands of Rubber Main coffins immediately, yet FEMA could not provide timely, there would be a outcry. Can't have it both ways. Luck favors the prepared.

If it were up to me I would disband both DHS and FEMA. The Federal Government shouldn't be in the disaster recovery or the law enforcement businesses. Both should be strictly state run functions.

[August]

And BTW just because the Feds haven't attacked civilians recently they have in the past and only a fool would figure they never would do so again.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

If it were up to me I would disband both DHS and FEMA. The Federal Government shouldn't be in the disaster recovery or the law enforcement businesses. Both should be strictly state run functions.

FEMA oversees other places other than the states. PR and VI. Other countries benefit from FEMA. Haiti for example. Pago Pago(American Samoa). Guam. Saipan....these territories benefit from FEMA when disaster strikes. As for each state handling disasters....they do. Maryland had MEMA. Florida has their own emergency response. MS, LA, TX, AL, etc. If the state is inundated and require more supplies they turn to FEMA.

As for law enforcement, maybe not local enforcement but international law enforcement...who is going to enforce it?

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

And BTW just because the Feds haven't attacked civilians recently they have in the past and only a fool would figure they never would do so again.

Who here said they would never do it again? I'm sure another Waco will come about.

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

FEMA oversees other places other than the states. PR and VI. Other countries benefit from FEMA. Haiti for example. Pago Pago(American Samoa). Guam. Saipan....these territories benefit from FEMA when disaster strikes.

Fine then limit it to overseas territories. As you say the states already have their own emergency management, no need for duplication on the federal level. I might be agreeable to a federal fund to help out the state agency with paying for it all but anything more direct ought to be supplied by the US military. We don't need a bunch of separate organizations doing the same job.

As for law enforcement, maybe not local enforcement but
international law enforcement...who is going to enforce it?

International law? Last I checked the US Constitution was the supreme law of this land. Perhaps you meant Federal law? If so then part of the problem is there are way too many Federal laws. Taking out street gang members like what was envisioned as a possible use for these armored vehicles should be a state function.

[Spike88]

Originally Posted by Platapus

At least I hope I would. In my military career, I was never ordered to shoot Americans, but I was put in many situations where, in safeguarding nuclear material, I had the authorization to protect the material from any unauthorized people. Since I was in Utah at the time, I don't think they were concerned with the ruskies, but from Americans.

My cousin is enlisted in the Air Force and was tasked with defending an ICBM silo. During one of his shifts a man entered the premises with a raised shotgun. My cousin shot the man and killed him, only to find out that the guy had a suicide note. He wanted to die, but for whatever reason couldn't do it himself, so he entered the base with the intent of dying.

[AVGWarhawk]

Originally Posted by August

Fine then limit it to overseas territories. As you say the states already have their own emergency management, no need for duplication on the federal level. I might be agreeable to a federal fund to help out the state agency with paying for it all but anything more direct ought to be supplied by the US military. We don't need a bunch of separate organizations doing the same job.



International law? Last I checked the US Constitution was the supreme law of this land. Perhaps you meant Federal law? If so then part of the problem is there are way too many Federal laws. Taking out street gang members like what was envisioned as a possible use for these armored vehicles should be a state function.

Wrong...the states do not have the resources to cover all disasters. Do you realize how fast water for drinking(bottled water) would be consumed in NY if Sandy was worse than it already was? NY does not have enough water to last the afternoon. The Fed does fund for disasters. What, Christy got 6 billion for his state? Funding does not get water to disaster victims within a reasonable amount of time. Water already staged at distribution centers does. Disasters are 4 fold. Immediate response, continued response, clean up and rebuild. Just because it is not on the news does not mean everything is back to normal. Far from it. As for separate organization doing the same job, none really do. The National Guard might assist. They have Hummers and helicopters. FEMA does not. FEMA can not commander a aircraft carrier to take water to HI if needed. But the Navy sure can if asked. FEMA does not own the USS Comfort and deploy the vessel to Haiti. Each organization can do certain things other can't. I would like to say it goes smoothly but often it does not. However, it is better if any or none of the organizations did not exist.


No, I meant International law. Federal and local laws can be handled by cops.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Spike88

My cousin is enlisted in the Air Force and was tasked with defending an ICBM silo. During one of his shifts a man entered the premises with a raised shotgun. My cousin shot the man and killed him, only to find out that the guy had a suicide note. He wanted to die, but for whatever reason couldn't do it himself, so he entered the base with the intent of dying.

That must have been tough for your cousin. Sorry to hear that your cousin had to go through that. "Suicide by cop" can be devastating to the officer, unwittingly involved in the suicide plot.

[August]

Originally Posted by AVGWarhawk

NY does not have enough water to last the afternoon.

Then New Yorks emergency management plans are woefully insufficient for it's population. The state is failing in it's basic duty. The feds would be far better off just making sure that the states plans are up to snuff than it is doing their job for them

No, I meant International law.

What international law has the Federal government ever arrested it's own citizens for violating on US territory? One that would require them to have armored assault capability to enforce.