DHS buying armored cars

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by razark

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)

[August]

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

[Stealhead]

Originally Posted by August

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.

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

I would argue that the larger an agency/organization becomes the more more likely it is to be subverted.

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.

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.

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.

The only form of government safe from this is no government at all... anarchy.

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.

[Stealhead]

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

[August]

Originally Posted by Stealhead

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.

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.

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.