WA state sheriff deputy "We have a lot of Constitutionalists" to justify MRAP use.

[WalkingWolf]

That shows a complete lack of understanding if you think it is ok for the people I described to have guns. History is not on your side.

I believe the 2A says shall not be infringed, and I believe once a person serves their time, or is released into the public they should be treated as a free person. Besides the fact that those laws are nothing more than a waste of money. Feel good legislation that absolutely does not work, and in fact encourages crime.

 

[StanSwitek]

I believe the 2A says shall not be infringed, and I believe once a person serves their time, or is released into the public they should be treated as a free person. Besides the fact that those laws are nothing more than a waste of money. Feel good legislation that absolutely does not work, and in fact encourages crime.

That is your own uninformed opinion and you are welcome to it. I feel safe saying the majority of America, existing case law and the US Supreme court disagrees with you.

 

[WalkingWolf]

That is your own uninformed opinion and you are welcome to it. I feel safe saying the majority of America, existing case law and the US Supreme court disagrees with you.

Then please explain how criminals get guns to commit crimes?

 

[StanSwitek]

Then please explain how criminals get guns to commit crimes?

You seem to have all the answers (at least you think you do) Good luck with that.

 

[twoskinsonemanns]

If they are a danger to society they do not belong on the street, if they are free, they are free. I much rather you be honest than to try to blow smoke.

This. Exactly right. People don't understand their support of anti 2A efforts. Oh it's okay for these certain people to own bats and knives and vehicles and be trusted to interact with society but guns are special.

 

[OC for ME]

Welcome to OCDO

...

As far as MRAP's, any claims that departments are obtaining them due to "fears of armed constitutionals" are pure BS. Armored vehicles have been in use by law enforcement for over 50 years. They are a public safety tool to be used against armed criminals who are engaging in crimes like school shootings and robberies with hostages just to name a few. With the rising threat to our country by radical Islamist's it is even more important that law enforcement be prepared. An armored vehicle is just one of many tools law enforcement is making use of. Any claims of conspiracy theories that law enforcement is planning on using such tools to "oppress" they public is complete nonsense.

...

How can a armored vehicle be of any use for a school shooting? Armored vehicles are for the safety of officers only.

Cops are like just about anyone else and will secure their employment at the expense of their fellow citizens. While it seems wrong for them to do this, being public servants, times are tough a paycheck keeps food on the table and a roof over their heads. A personal code of conduct aligned with a moral compass is easily suspended based on the perceived outcomes of not infringing upon a citizen's right to keep and bear arms.

 

[OC Freedom]

I believe the 2A says shall not be infringed, and I believe once a person serves their time, or is released into the public they should be treated as a free person. Besides the fact that those laws are nothing more than a waste of money. Feel good legislation that absolutely does not work, and in fact encourages crime.

Your postings are so right on. Now if UTBAGPIPER would just learn from you, I wouldn't get a headache reading his long winded ramblings of fuzzy logic and closet worshiping of the State.

 

[StanSwitek]

Welcome to OCDOHow can a armored vehicle be of any use for a school shooting? Armored vehicles are for the safety of officers only.

Hostage rescue. Cover to engage an active shooter. Now undoubtedly you will disagree but fortunately you are not making those decisions.

 

[utbagpiper]

I believe the 2A says shall not be infringed, and I believe once a person serves their time, or is released into the public they should be treated as a free person. ....

Your postings are so right on. Now if UTBAGPIPER would just learn from you, I wouldn't get a headache reading his long winded .....

I'm going ignore some needless jabs in favor of trying to increase civility and raise the tone of discussion here.

To be clear, I believe that once a person serves his time and completes any modest period of supervision (ie is allowed to walk the streets freely and unsupervised) then all of his rights ought to be respected including his right to own and peacefully carry firearms. I recognize that is a minority opinion even among most gun owners.

I hope I can make my next point briefly enough not to induce any headaches.

We have a new member sign up. Is our goal to welcome him where he is and perhaps help him along a path toward more fully supporting our RKBA over the next few months and years as we enjoy our mutual association and the perspective he can bring? Or is it to drive him away because he only agrees with us 95% (or 90% or 80%, or whatever it is) rather than 100%? It is one thing to politely express some disagreement, and offer some insights as to why you hold the view you do. It is quite another to attack as a heretic anyone who has the slightest disagreement with you.

I was under the impression this was a pro-RKBA site. If so, police ownership and use of MRAPs (troubling as that may be to some of us) is, at best, a peripheral issue. Stan has said he supports RKBA and believes an order to confiscate guns would never happen and would result in civil war if it did. I say welcome him and his point of view. And try to keep disagreements civil and thoughtful rather than looking like some kind of purity test or loyalty oath more suitable to a medieval inquisition than to a modern forum with members coming from diverse backgrounds and a variety of viewpoints.

Charles

 

[OC for ME]

Hostage rescue. Cover to engage an active shooter. Now undoubtedly you will disagree but fortunately you are not making those decisions.

Not disagreeing, just not convinced (lack of evidence) that a armored vehicle is of any use in the vast majority of instances that they're used, as stated by Nightmare. I acknowledged that these vehicles are only for cop protection. This is a valid reason to use them but do not attribute any value beyond that for the need for these vehicles. If a armored vehicle has stopped a school shooting incident please point us in that direction. They are best suited to manage (only used for?) civil unrest and are routinely seen managing these incidents. Thus the good deputy is 100% accurate in his assessment for their need.

 

[utbagpiper]

Let me just say that in my experience most of the people I knew in my thirty year law enforcement career would not agree with the comments of the deputy quoted in the original post.

Stan,

Welcome. And my apologies for a few members who often forget that this is a pro-RKBA / pro-OpenCarry board rather than a libertarian or anarchist or police bashing board. I believe that some modest agreement on the individual right to own and carry firearms for self defense is all that is or should be required to work together on gun issues.

Please stick around, offer us your perspective and views. And try to ignore those who feel compelled to verbally beat into submission any who don't agree with them 110%. Or at least try to remain civil in any necessary responses.

I'm Charles Hardy, public policy director of GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah), though the majority of my posts are entirely my personal view and not necessarily reflective of any position GOUtah! may or may not hold.

Welcome.

Charles

 

[StanSwitek]

Not disagreeing, just not convinced (lack of evidence) that a armored vehicle is of any use in the vast majority of instances that they're used, as stated by Nightmare. I acknowledged that these vehicles are only for cop protection. This is a valid reason to use them but do not attribute any value beyond that for the need for these vehicles. If a armored vehicle has stopped a school shooting incident please point us in that direction. They are best suited to manage (only used for?) civil unrest and are routinely seen managing these incidents. Thus the good deputy is 100% accurate in his assessment for their need.

They have many uses. Just because they have not been used in a certain type of scenario does not mean they mean they will not be useful in the future. Let me explain it this way. A mechanic has many tools in his tool box. He doesn't use every tool for every job. He has them available in case they are needed. It is the same concept in law enforcement. You have many tools. You obviously do not need to bring all of the tools to every situation, however you have them available in the event of worse case scenario. Common sense dictates that you prepare for the future. They are public safety tools not public oppression tools. Claims that they will be used to oppress the public in some manner are completely bogus and fear mongering.

 

[StanSwitek]

Stan,

Welcome. And my apologies for a few members who often forget that this is a pro-RKBA / pro-OpenCarry board rather than a libertarian or anarchist or police bashing board. I believe that some modest agreement on the individual right to own and carry firearms for self defense is all that is or should be required to work together on gun issues.

Please stick around, offer us your perspective and views. And try to ignore those who feel compelled to verbally beat into submission any who don't agree with them 110%. Or at least try to remain civil in any necessary responses.

I'm Charles Hardy, public policy director of GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah), though the majority of my posts are entirely my personal view and not necessarily reflective of any position GOUtah! may or may not hold.

Welcome.

Charles

Thank you sir. Most of us are just sharing personal views and experiences. I realize than some people are overly sensitive. I deal with those type in the real world frequently. I think most gun owners are responsible people and I support gun ownership 100%. I realize that in every group of gun enthusiasts there will be a few gun nuts. As you noted, I have already met a few of the nuts.

 

[OC for ME]

They have many uses. Just because they have not been used in a certain type of scenario does not mean they mean they will not be useful in the future. Let me explain it this way. A mechanic has many tools in his tool box. He doesn't use every tool for every job. He has them available in case they are needed. It is the same concept in law enforcement. You have many tools. You obviously do not need to bring all of the tools to every situation, however you have them available in the event of worse case scenario. Common sense dictates that you prepare for the future. They are public safety tools not public oppression tools. Claims that they will be used to oppress the public in some manner are completely bogus and fear mongering.

A armored vehicle, by its very nature, has limited uses, it is a big vehicle designed to support operations outside. Officer safety is vitally important, but this should not be used as a excuse to justify the violation of citizen rights, to justify violations of the law. Securing a quick resolution to criminal activities while protecting officers, where their use is appropriate, does provide a incidental public benefit, but armored vehicles do not keep the public safe.

The mere presence of a armored vehicle is not a violation of any citizen's rights, or the law. The monetary cost aside (maintenance), I have no issue with LEAs having these vehicles. In fact it is unlikely I will ever see one of these up close and in person.

As to the "used to oppress the public is bogus", your view is just as valid as the opposing view, it comes down to how the equipment is used vs. when it is used. Like a firearm, it is a tool that is, hopefully, used within the confines of the law.

 

[StanSwitek]

A armored vehicle, by its very nature, has limited uses, it is a big vehicle designed to support operations outside. Officer safety is vitally important, but this should not be used as a excuse to justify the violation of citizen rights, to justify violations of the law. Securing a quick resolution to criminal activities while protecting officers, where their use is appropriate, does provide a incidental public benefit, but armored vehicles do not keep the public safe.

The mere presence of a armored vehicle is not a violation of any citizen's rights, or the law. The monetary cost aside (maintenance), I have no issue with LEAs having these vehicles. In fact it is unlikely I will ever see one of these up close and in person.

As to the "used to oppress the public is bogus", your view is just as valid as the opposing view, it comes down to how the equipment is used vs. when it is used. Like a firearm, it is a tool that is, hopefully, used within the confines of the law.

If it was used to successfully rescue close friends or family I suspect you may have a different view. You seem intent on arguing the issue. I will tell you simply it is public safety tool. If used improperly, it will be taken away. Armored vehicles have been around in law enforcement for over 50 years. If your local PD was intent on oppressing the public, they would have an entire fleet, not one of two.

 

[WalkingWolf]

If it was used to successfully rescue close friends or family I suspect you may have a different view. You seem intent on arguing the issue. I will tell you simply it is public safety tool. If used improperly, it will be taken away. Armored vehicles have been around in law enforcement for over 50 years. If your local PD was intent on oppressing the public, they would have an entire fleet, not one of two.

Could you cite some of these instances please?

 

[StanSwitek]

Could you cite some of these instances please?

The most high profile example was the 1997 B of A shootout in LA. A civilian armored car was used to evacuate the injured from the kill zone. This demonstrated a need for LE to be better prepared. There are literally hundreds of other example of the public being saved by police armored vehicles which have been in use for over 50 years. I am not going to cite every case to appease you. If you look at what is going on globally it is pretty easy to see why such a tool may be useful in the future.

 

[WalkingWolf]

The most high profile example was the 1997 B of A shootout in LA. A civilian armored car was used to evacuate the injured from the kill zone. This demonstrated a need for LE to be better prepared. There are literally hundreds of other example of the public being saved by police armored vehicles which have been in use for over 50 years. I am not going to cite every case to appease you. If you look at what is going on globally it is pretty easy to see why such a tool may be useful in the future.

Could you provide a link to this incident, and just how do you think they will get a MRAP into a school building to evacuate students?

 

[StanSwitek]

I just visited my old department's (130 sworn) web site to see no notice of an armored vehicle subsequent to a refused offer of the donation of an armored-van in 2006, nor in the town budget. I did note that the lieutanant commanding SWAT while I was there is now Chief.

Well great. That is their choice. Other surrounding agencies like the county sheriff or state police may have such a tool and they figured if the had a future need they could just request mutual aid. Not uncommon at all. That simply supports my case there is not a grand conspiracy to use these vehicles to oppress the public. If there was every department would have them. Declining would not be optional. As for maintenance, that's a red herring. These vehicles are driven less than 100 miles annually. Not much to do beyond changing the oil and keeping the battery charged.

 

[StanSwitek]

Could you provide a link to this incident, and just how do you think they will get a MRAP into a school building to evacuate students?

Listen dude, I am not going engage or do research for some guy who thinks it's ok for the mentally ill to own guns. We are done. Not playing your game. You have proven time and time again you are not capable of viewing the big picture.