• If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership  The benefits pay for the membership many times over.

july 3rd fireworks

Hogie1 said:
Bob, I'll stand up and back you on this one. I think what Sharon PD did was legit and you're right on the mark. I'm on the fire dept side but I've been taking quite a lot of terrorism courses as of late and I agree that they had better be prepared.
Click to expand...

The town of Sharon, MA has a huge terrorism problem I take it? The cops don't need to be loaded for bear to be prepared for a violent incident. They can keep their rifles in their cruiser. We don't live in a country where public gatherings are accompanied by rows of armed riot police.

A small town cop walking around with an AR doesn't prevent terrorism.
 
I really don't buy the argument that we need cops on patrol with ARs and soforth to combat terrorism. What does an AR have to do with counter-terrorism? The 9/11 terrorists used box cutters. The guys making these policies seem to have watched Die Hard a few too many times.
 
The real question is, what are they going to do if somebody shows up with an AR-10? The cops are going to be outgunned. They are going to need a bigger caliber weapon. Since MA is yet to follow CA's lead with the .50BMG ban, they need to jump to carrying at least 50 BMG to avoid being outgunned. You never know, you have to be prepaired. Thats why we need the Patriot Act and neighbor/neighbor spying programs.
 
lowbuckbob said:
Sorry guys, I stand by my statements. Virtually all agencies are currently engaged in active shooter training, including MSP. As an LEO Firearms Instructor, I am part of this. I don't see this as the promotion of a police state but maybe I'm biased. I find it interesting that a group of people who promote firearms would be against their own police officers carrying the most efficient firearms they can.
Click to expand...

So, the appropriate response to the possibility of terrorism (in SHARON for Pete's sake!) is to outfit the police foot patrols with rifles that would get any of US locked up for carrying in public (walk through NEXT 4th July with a ar-15 slung over your civilian shoulder and see where you spend the night).

It would make no sense, I suppose, to just have a team of well trained and well armed cops READY and perhaps even deployed to a convenient location nearby, and simply have normal by very alert police patrols with constant communications...

I call "Mall Ninja" on the Sharon PD and LowBuckBob.

Unless, of course, everyone thinks it would be COOL to live in a police state...
 
Sharon ??? Puhlease! google the pop info on Sharon....white, Jewish, upper middle class.


Brockton fairgrounds....maybe


Isn't Sharon the town with the large sign "Discharge of firearms is prohibited" on RT 27?
 
I think the assertion that carrying black rifles is the sign of a police state is just as absurd as the notion that civilians with such rifles encourages crime and anarchy.

It should be the employment of said rifles that should raise questions. Simply carrying them around is, to me, no more a attempt to intimidate/condition the sheeple than carrying sidearms. The fact is that the average non-shooter is just as scared of the sidearm as they are of the rifle.
 
EddieCoyle said:
I'm all for the cops carrying whatever they want, as long as I can carry it too.
Click to expand...

Ditto.

I don't have a problem with them carrying rifles....but for crying out loud - in SHARON?????? JP, Dorchester, Murderpan, hell yeah...but Sharon? There's ways of training without resorting to that. My first thought, had I been there to see it, would have been, "Oh oh....is this a safe place to be right now?" I would not have enjoyed the fireworks.
 
vellnueve said:
I think the assertion that carrying black rifles is the sign of a police state is just as absurd as the notion that civilians with such rifles encourages crime and anarchy.

It should be the employment of said rifles that should raise questions. Simply carrying them around is, to me, no more a attempt to intimidate/condition the sheeple than carrying sidearms. The fact is that the average non-shooter is just as scared of the sidearm as they are of the rifle.
Click to expand...
Really? How they're armed has no impact on the atmosphere of an event?

So you see no difference between this:

police-state.jpg


and this?

50572342.JPG
 
So we bemoan the public's denigration of our right to own/carry EBR's, yet follow the same practice when it's the police?

I would agree with prior statements that we get to carry whatever they get to carry. I would be willing to bet that this will, eventually, (maybe not in my lifetime) become a 2A issue, where the people are allowed to be as equally armed as the government, in order to satisfy the purpose of 2A.

BTW, I was also at white horse Sat/Sun. There were lots of patrolmen, they even brought out their version of a "riot tank" (armored car with a roof hatch, painted black [laugh]) and officers sported what looked like moto helmets, no shields, rifles or even batons evident. I have a few pics of them falling in on one of their early sweeps.

Their efforts were focused almost entirely on people on the beach, in the streets, or anyone stupid enough to do something blatant right in front of them. I did not see them harass any residents, aside from the above mentioned blatant idiots.

The helicopter was overkill, though.[rolleyes]
 
lowbuckbob said:
The purpose of the police having patrol rifles is one of preparedness. The police are in no way attempting to intimidate those gathered for a peaceful viewing of fireworks. Large gatherings, such as a fireworks crowd, are magnets for a potential active shooter. The news is filled with recent large scale killings: Binghamton, NY; Nickel Mines, PA; Carthage, NC; Northern Illinois University; and Virgina Tech to name a few. If a psychopath with a large capacity weapon were to start shooting fireworks attendees, the police would only have their .40's. Additionally, where the fireworks are in Sharon puts officers' cruisers at a good distance, making the retrieval of a weapon locked in a car futile. An active shooter requires Immediate Action Rapid Deployment (IARD) which also requires that a suitable weapon (patrol rifle) be readily available. In a worst case scenario, if an active shooter were to kill a large number of attendees and police as well, the inevitable question would be, "Why weren't the police prepared?". Well, in this case, they were. Don't read too much into this, the patrol rifle is just another tool of the trade.
Click to expand...

Did you copy this from the front page of the NYT? [rolleyes]
 
It might be overkill, but I agree that they should be carrying whatever they feel they need, and I agree with EC, as long as I can carry it too.
 
If they want to carry AR15's then I say 'go for it'. Why would anyone on this thread be offended by the amount or type of firepower that LE uses? This kind of thinking on this forum always gets me. On the one hand you want to convince your Chief that you deserve an LTC alp and that you should be able to carry what you want. On the other hand you want to tell him what his guys should carry. I feel safer in the presence of guns. Not afraid or offended. I would hope you all do too.
Your gun grabbing neighbor doesn't want you to carry a glock with 5 mags either. Do you really need all that firepower? A strong argument could be made that the police have way more 'need' than we do!
 
TomH said:
Good point. Are there any laws prohibiting the open carry of rifles? Sounds like a good way to celebrate independence to me!
Click to expand...

Umm...if someone was open carrying an AR-15 at the fireworks in Sharon...they would likely have a problem[rofl]
 
ScottS said:
Really? How they're armed has no impact on the atmosphere of an event?

So you see no difference between this:

police-state.jpg


and this?

50572342.JPG
Click to expand...


Perfect point. One makes me want to say thank you for your service and one makes me think the terrorist's have won and freedom is dead.
 
ScottS said:
Really? How they're armed has no impact on the atmosphere of an event?

So you see no difference between this:
Click to expand...

Frankly, to me, I don't care one way or the other. Either way, you have police there.

And to people not brought up around guns, I doubt they see much of a difference either, because they're already scared s***less that the handguns are going to jump out of the holster and attack them.
 
Does anyone want to live in a country where law enforcement officers look like combat troops?
Not me, no way. I would pitch a fit to my board of selectmen (as if they wouldn't be appalled at this anyway) that would make the chiefs head spin.
To accept this kind of conduct is to condone it.
The only way I could support this is in places where gangs rule the streets. And at that, I would only tolerate it until the gang problem was "solved".
 
Last edited:
So the cops have rifles. I don't see that as violating anyone's unalienable rights.

If I had to protect a crowd from the unexpected and all I had was one guy backing me up, I'd want a rifle as well.
 
MACGYVR said:
Is this not covered in the compensating for a small penis thread?

Way over kill. So much for community policing.
Click to expand...

Well, if the community is Falluja.....


Issue patrol rifles: Yes

Carry patrol rifles in a low-threat environment with absolutly no indication of potential problems: Overkill.

EBR's are just another tool, sure. I agree with that 100% - but you don't dress your beat cops in riot gear if you're not expecting a riot. There's such a thing as measured response.
 
Last edited:
CRSIII said:
Does anyone want to live in a country where law enforcement officers look like combat troops?
Not me, no way. I would pitch a fit to my board of selectmen (as if they wouldn't be appalled at this anyway) that would make the chiefs head spin.
To accept this kind of conduct is to condone it.
The only way I could support this is in places where gangs rule the streets. And at that, I would only tolerate it until the gang problem was "solved".
Click to expand...

And the only way I can support you having a license to carry is if you live in a gang infested neighborhood. And I don't want you to have any 'assault rifles'. You don't want to live in a country where normal citizens can have an assault rifle in their house? Do you? You should be fine with a small revolver. On second thought I don't think you'll need a gun at all. Why don't you carry some pepper spray? But only until the gang problem in your area is 'solved'.
 
I was at the Sharon Fireworks as well. I saw the cops with the AR/M-16 over his shoulder and my buddy and I were wondering if it was a COLT or Bushmaster.

But don't forget, not only where they sporting evil black rifles...they were searching EVERYTHING and EVERYONE.

They searched around my kids in the stroller. They searched the Stroller. They searched every one of my foldable Seats. My wife's Purse, my cooler, everything but my pockets.

That's what I found odd...they went through all my gear, but never asked if I had anything on me... I wonde what they would have said about my knife had they found it?



With that, they did have kick ass Fried Snickers Bar there!
 

Similar threads

3rd Circuit Denies Rehearing In SAF Pennsylvania Gun Rights Victory
Replies
1
Views
143
oldguy68
oldguy68
1/3rd or Full Co Witness Sight.
Replies
9
Views
447
TheGreekFreak
TheGreekFreak
NJ vs Koons live at 3rd Circuit
Replies
7
Views
741
VetteGirlMA
VetteGirlMA
July 2023 Marked 48 Straight Months of Record Gun Sales in the U.S.
Replies
13
Views
456
frenchman
frenchman
Not the official July 2023 new acquisitions
Replies
9
Views
572
1903Collector
1903Collector
Back
Top Bottom