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.
It seems so simple, doesn't it?Why not just let me carry my gun?
And we all thought shooting dogs was a big deal...
You raise a good point, but at least in my sarcastic response this was already considered and weighed against the demonstrated incompetence, corruption and abuse of power in that particular police force in the past.Before we all get worked up about this, consider what the NYPD said in that article, that simply they don't feel that they can rely on the Federal Govt to provide anti-terrorism protection. Now isn't that what a lot of us say here, that we can't rely on the Feds to protect us?
Instead, we knot our knickers and go off an the militarization of the police.
Before we all get worked up about this, consider what the NYPD said in that article, that simply they don't feel that they can rely on the Federal Govt to provide anti-terrorism protection. Now isn't that what a lot of us say here, that we can't rely on the Feds to protect us?
Instead, we knot our knickers and go off an the militarization of the police.
There are people on this Forum who legally own weapons systems capable of taking out aircraft, so what's the big deal if the NYPD has a few shoulder propelled SAMs? We gave 'em away to the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) by the crate load.
I don't know what I am missing here, as NYC is one of two US Cities that have actually been under air attack.
It sounds like some of you want to set limits on who can own what weapons...kinda sounds like some other folks we hear from that we normally oppose.
Oh, my issue isn't that they can do it, or that we know about it, or that it is something that may one day need to be done. My issue is that it seems that there are more and more powerful weapons in the hands of more and more people whose motives may be questionable. I don't really think having SA 7's in the hands of street cops is an unrealistic progression, nor an especially good idea. Nor for that matter do I really thinks Sherrif's (Arpaio ring a bell) should necessarily have TANKS either.
If I recall they used 4lbs of C4 and dropped it from a helicopter onto a building. Ones would ask how a city police department got a hold of 4lbs of C4 on short notice....
If I recall they used 4lbs of C4 and dropped it from a helicopter onto a building. Ones would ask how a city police department got a hold of 4lbs of C4 on short notice....
It sounds like some of you want to set limits on who can own what weapons...kinda sounds like some other folks we hear from that we normally oppose.
NYPD can knock down PLANES???
WTF???
<snip>
" 'The New York Police Department could take down a plane if necessary', Commissioner Ray Kelly said Sunday, describing the counter-terror measures he implemented after the Sept. 11 attacks."
Entire article here
Okay...so you would restrict weapons for the police, and not the citizenry? It would appear that you are advocating some type of gun control?
For the record, I deplore the militarization of the police, but there is a dynamic to this whole situation that needs to be at least investigated. This is, should state and local entities rely on the Federal Government to provide protection? For the hardcore libertarians out there, the answer is probably that the armed forces are one of the few legitimate organs of government, backed by a citizen militia. We have long pushed the line that state and local law enforcement is getting in bed more and more with the Feds to create a de facto national police force (I have articulated this point many times on this Forum)...but let's look at it from another perspective: Does Sheriff Joe need tanks? (probably not) Does the NYPD need an anti-aircraft capability? NYC was attacked by the air...the Federal Govt knew that something was going down, but were they able to respond in time? The answer of course is no. Historically, then the Feds have proven themselves incapable of providing NYC with a AA capability, the traditional state military force: The New York Air National Guard was incapable as well. Who does that leave, and who according to law has the duty to collectively protect society against threats? Well in NYC it is the NYPD.
Now if the Rapid City, SD PD wanted to purchase a bunch of Stingers to protect against aerial threats, I'd balk...there is no precedence for having those weapon systems and no historical precedence.
So in effect, what I am gathering is that the NYPD's motives are questionable which would put you in the anti-cop crowd and your objection is therefore more ideological than pragmatic. Would you deny any person, or group the right to defend itself against real threats? To me that is the essence of the question. If an armored division of the Mexican Army headed north and was attacking Phoenix maybe Sheriff Joe would be justified in having tanks, but that is an unlikely scenario, and although the Mexican Army or members of it may actually be conducting operations in southern Arizona, with or with the approval of the Mexican Government and in conjunction with or not in conjunction with drug cartels is immaterial and moot. Tanks and other armored vehicles would not be an appropriate response by either Federal, local or state law enforcement to that type of threat.
Any organization (or individual) who has a perceived threat should have the weapons systems at hand to counter that threat.
Lets face it, in a city the only way you know a plane is a threat is that it's already hit a building. There is no way for them to know what planes are threats.
Why not just let me carry my gun?
"We couldn't rely on the federal government alone. I believed that we had to create our own counter-terrorism capacity, indeed our own counter-terrorism division. And, that plan was put into effect fairly rapidly," he added.
NYPD has long had such operations going - before 9/11...I agree the communication and response time of the Fed certainly lends itself to a state making their own preparations but did anyone read this part of the article:
"The commissioner also told "60 Minutes" that the NYPD has intelligence officers stationed in cities around the world, including Abu Dhabi, Amman, Montreal, Toronto, Singapore and Paris. "
Seems a little overkill for a state to be doing this. Do they now have the "New York Intelligence Agency"? Were the NY taxpayers informed that their higher state tax dollars were being spent for overseas intelligence gathering that they already pay Federal taxes for?
Before we all get worked up about this, consider what the NYPD said in that article, that simply they don't feel that they can rely on the Federal Govt to provide anti-terrorism protection. Now isn't that what a lot of us say here, that we can't rely on the Feds to protect us?
Instead, we knot our knickers and go off an the militarization of the police.
There are people on this Forum who legally own weapons systems capable of taking out aircraft, so what's the big deal if the NYPD has a few shoulder propelled SAMs? We gave 'em away to the Mujahideen (aka Taliban) by the crate load.
I don't know what I am missing here, as NYC is one of two US Cities that have actually been under air attack.
It sounds like some of you want to set limits on who can own what weapons...kinda sounds like some other folks we hear from that we normally oppose.
I agree the communication and response time of the Fed certainly lends itself to a state making their own preparations but did anyone read this part of the article:
"The commissioner also told "60 Minutes" that the NYPD has intelligence officers stationed in cities around the world, including Abu Dhabi, Amman, Montreal, Toronto, Singapore and Paris. "
Seems a little overkill for a state to be doing this. Do they now have the "New York Intelligence Agency"? Were the NY taxpayers informed that their higher state tax dollars were being spent for overseas intelligence gathering that they already pay Federal taxes for?
The difference I do not have unfettered access to buys guns, let alone APCs or ground to air missiles. If I could buy them I'd have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is I'm already out gunned and we're just getting further in the hole.
Also, I can't [STRIKE]steal money from other[/STRIKE] tax people to pay for my own defense. I first have to fund the police, then jump through red tape hoops to purchase inferior firepower to defend myself from the people I just armed.
Government is made up of people, if you don't want your crazy neighbor to have it, you should not allow government to have it.This, if the Fed wants to limit what we can purchase we need to limit them