Local Cops Ready for War With Homeland Security-Funded Military Weapons - The Daily Beast (http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/12/20/local-cops-ready-for-war-with-homeland-security-funded-military-weapons.html)

Coming to a town near you. Just another example of govt self perpetuation.

:wall:

Would you prefer they spent the money on Sno-cone Machines?

THEY DID THAT ALREADY :smash:

Would you prefer they spent the money on Sno-cone Machines?

No, but god forbid there is an attack where they need that artillery, and he'd be lamenting that they only had 9's and shotguns to retalliate....

I like snow cones.

THEY DID THAT ALREADY :smash:

Yeah, I know....and you were pissin and moanin that they spent the money on those......

Now they spent the money on weapons....and your pissin and moanin. :huh:

So Grumpy you'll be heating your house with coal :tooth:

Lots of coal starting on the 26th

Yeah, I know....and you were pissin and moanin that they spent the money on those......

Now they spent the money on weapons....and your pissin and moanin. :huh:
Or... and here's a novel concept... they could *refrain* from spending the money.

Our government is like some of my idiot friends that live paycheck to paycheck and then complain about not having any money. 50" LED TVs, going out for dinner 3x/week and driving a new car are not an essential part of living and is why those people don't have any money. Just like APCs, snow cone machines and the millions of other things the government wastes aren't essential for getting their jobs done.

Yeah, I know....and you were pissin and moanin that they spent the money on those......

Now they spent the money on weapons....and your pissin and moanin. :huh:

Too much wood dust, not enough fishing :uhuh: I say give them every weapon necessary.

A TANK??????



No, but god forbid there is an attack where they need that artillery, and he'd be lamenting that they only had 9's and shotguns to retalliate....

DING DING DING

Someone who gets it.

You guys are messed up if you think it's justified to have a tank or armored cars with frickin gun turrets on them. Half a million dollars to sit somewhere and park next to the dare car at your next strawberry festival?

Moonbats :smash: :hee:

Or... and here's a novel concept... they could *refrain* from spending the money.

Our government is like some of my idiot friends that live paycheck to paycheck and then complain about not having any money. 50" LED TVs, going out for dinner 3x/week and driving a new car are not an essential part of living and is why those people don't have any money. Just like APCs, snow cone machines and the millions of other things the government wastes aren't essential for getting their jobs done.

Or... and here's a novel concept... they could *refrain* from spending the money.

They could...but they won't...

The biggest problem w/ the government is their Budget planning mentality....If they have money left at the end of the year they spend it instead of saving it....because if they don't spend it they get their budget cut by what they save the following year.

Stupidest thought process I've ever seen

If they want to fix it they need to stop working their budget that way, and also give managers an incentive based bonus for saving money....maybe 5% of what is saved in a department....

But until they do....which would you rather see....Sno-cone machines or weapons going to the police force

PLUGS John PLUGS

100% eco friendly, renewable, clean green energy, NOT govt subsidized :smash:


I'm tellin you...we're on the wave of the future. Cuz if they ain't gonna sell they'll burn just nicely.


So Grumpy you'll be heating your house with coal :tooth:

Lots of coal starting on the 26th

They could...but they won't...

The biggest problem w/ the government is their Budget planning mentality....If they have money left at the end of the year they spend it instead of saving it....because if they don't spend it they get their budget cut by what they save the following year.

Stupidest thought process I've ever seen

If they want to fix it they need to stop working their budget that way, and also give managers an incentive based bonus for saving money....maybe 5% of what is saved in a department....

But until they do....which would you rather see....Sno-cone machines or weapons going to the police force

Agree TDF, but that 5% incentive sounds Capitalistic. :)

I would defer to the police on this as to whether it is necessary. There are other places to cut, like subsidies for corn and sucrose growers.

"Local police bristle at the suggestion that they’ve become “militarized,” arguing the upgrade in firepower and other equipment is necessary to combat criminals with more lethal capabilities. They point to the 1997 Los Angeles-area bank robbers who pinned police for hours with assault weapons, the gun-wielding student who perpetrated the Virginia Tech massacre in 2007, and the terrorists who waged a bloody rampage in Mumbai, India, that left 164 people dead and 300 wounded in 2008."

they're grasping at straws

i know
lets get barney

What's that saying "Better to have it and not Need it, than need it and not Have it"

I'm also impressed, Scott, that you are embracing a Liberal Leaning article like this and taking it to heart....:hihi:

I mean, hell, they got somebody from the ACLU to back there position in the article.....says the Cops only job is to investigate AFTER the crime was committed

What was that you said......Moonbats

How bout IF YOU CANT AFFORD IT YOU DONT BUY IT AND DO WITHOUT

moonbat commies it shoulda been :hee:

Agree TDF, but that 5% incentive sounds Capitalistic. :)

Wouldn't happen because friggin "Newscenter 5 Investigates" would be all over the government for using our tax dollars to give government employees bonuses....without pointing out the fact that it is incentive based and actually saving money in the long run...

so its business as usual for the federal government....:smash:

I like snow cones.

Do they remind you of your hat?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Do they remind you of your hat?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, yes they do. It's the perfect combination of style and function.

I was lucky enough to fire a 98B that I believe was obtained through this DHS grant. That thing was sweetness.... And a bargain at just under 5k without toys for the upper receiver.... Might have displaced the M107A as my favorite, and at a quarter of the cost!!!!

But to actually be able to put either of these weapons to use in a domestic situation..... maybe once a year across the whole country. Love the weapons, but can't see the justification.

What's that saying "Better to have it and not Need it, than need it and not Have it"
There are limitations to that saying. Limitations like "hey, our country/state/town is deeply in debt so we should be reasonable with our purchases."

On that "need it but not have it bit", I'd like to see a report on how many times in the last 5 years the town *needed* an APC and how many times any police officer *needed* an M14 with military grade head protection - especially in a large city in North Dakota that: has averaged fewer than two homicides a year since 2005, and there’s not been a single international terrorism prosecution in the last decade.

Two homicides a year in the last 6 years... yeah, that definitely demonstrates a need for a militarized police force.

Me too. Why look at hillbilly country. Switch it to Boston. When is the last time you saw a need for a apc with a turret and guns..

oh wait there was that Occupy camp wasn't there LOL

they must know something their not allowed to divulge.
maybe the cartels are going to switch countries.

kinda curious that the drug cartel king pins liked to keep Lions.
reminds me of early Roman times.

There are limitations to that saying. Limitations like "hey, our country/state/town is deeply in debt so we should be reasonable with our purchases."


I was saying it more Toungue in Cheek than anything....I do tend to be a smart ass at time.

Yeah, common sense dictates thats how they should think but, as I said before, its how the governments do budgeting that is the real problem.

If the feds give a town 5 million to the police force and the force this year says that we are good, we only need $500k here's the rest back, now next year the funds come out and the town gets $500k....but they need 2 million....the government says Welll you made do with $500k last year thats all we're giving you this year, sorry.

So the way the towns/states think is Heck, They gave us 5 million we sure as hell are going to spend it on something so they will give us the same next year.

so is it going to be on sno-cone machines or on an APC's?

The government needs to learn to budget on an "As Needed" basis...and they need to learn how to speed the process up.

The government needs to learn to budget on an "As Needed" basis...and they need to learn how to speed the process up.

what budget?????

Another Grim Milestone: 900 Days of Budget Neglect
October 17th, 2011

Yesterday, America reached another grim milestone that went entirely unreported among the major media outlets. No newspaper ran it as a headline, no cable news network devoted a segment of any show today to it. In fact, if people like Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI) didn’t mark these dates, you probably wouldn’t hear about them.

This is the second consecutive year that Senate Democrats have disregarded the legally mandated budget process. In fact, this Sunday will mark the 900th day since Senate Democrats last adopted a formal budget plan as outlined in the Congressional Budget Act. It is a national disgrace.

The Constitution did not give Congress a very lengthy job description and one of its most important tasks is to handle the money it takes from us in taxes. The Republican-led House has done its part but the Senate, led by the hyper-partisan Harry Reid, simply will not pass a bill. This is what Reid said back in May, about 150 days ago.

“There’s no need to have a Democratic budget, in my opinion,” Reid told the Los Angeles Times last week. “It would be foolish for us to do a budget at this stage.”


'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' '''''''''''''

Dems won’t pass budget in 2010
By Jared Allen - 06/21/10

House Democrats will not pass a budget blueprint in 2010, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) will confirm in a speech on Tuesday.

But Hoyer will vow to crack down on government spending, saying Democrats will enforce spending limits that are lower than what President Barack Obama has called for.

In the scheduled address to the progressive think tank The Third Way, Hoyer will acknowledge that the lower chamber will do things differently this election year.

“It isn’t possible to debate and pass a realistic, long-term budget until we’ve considered the bipartisan commission’s deficit-reduction plan, which is expected in December,” according to Hoyer’s prepared remarks that were provided to The Hill.

The House has never failed to pass an annual budget resolution since the current budget rules were put into place in 1974. Hoyer this spring noted that the GOP-led Congress didn’t pass a final resolution in 1998, 2004 and 2006.




'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' ''''''

House says no to mandating balanced federal budget

Nov. 18, 2011
By JIM ABRAMS, Associated Press

The first House vote in 16 years on making federal deficits unconstitutional came as the separate bipartisan "supercommittee" appeared to be sputtering in its attempt to find at least $1.2 trillion in deficit reductions to head off major automatic cuts. The lead Republican on that panel said members were "painfully, painfully aware" of its Wednesday deadline for action and would work through the weekend.

The House voted 261-165 in favor of the measure to require annual balanced budgets, but that was 23 short of the two-thirds majority needed to advance a constitutional amendment.

''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

December 14, 2011 Senate rejects two balanced budget amendments

(AP) The Senate has defeated two proposals to amend the Constitution to compel Congress to come up with a balanced budget every year. The votes, coming after House rejection of a balanced budget amendment last month, effectively shuts off the constitutional approach for forcing Congress to live within its means.

With Democrats solidly against the amendments, the outcome was never in doubt. But the Senate was required to stage the votes under last summer's deal for raising the government's debt limit in exchange for $2 trillion in future spending cuts.

Senate rejects two balanced budget amendments - CBS News (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57343013/senate-rejects-two-balanced-budget-amendments/)

No Chit :wall:

No Chit :wall:

amazing isn't it?.....vociferous arguents over which side has more dissenting views on their radio/tv programs and an 18 dollar a week, 60 day reduction in contributions to an entitlement that is 30 billion in the red this year.......... our Federal Government has been operating without a budget for quite some time, and noone sems to care...:confused:

As part of the "War Supplement Bill for FY2011", The Pelosi House of Representatives "deemed" the 2011 Budget, and the Senate completely discarded the Presidential Budget Proposal. So there was not Federal Budget for FY2011.

Similarly, the President submitted a budget for FY2012, but Senator Reid tossed it, and would not let Congress vote on it. The House of Representatives also sent a 2012 budget proposal to the Senate. Same result. There is no U.S. Federal Budget for FY2012.

Instead, we have a series of "continuing resolutions", allowing Congress to continue spending without the guidelines of a budget

Thanks to Homeland Security Funding the city has installed cameras through out the city. I can't even pinch the wife's butt while strolling on the promenade along the water front, would get cited for open and gross lewedness. :)

You know what the local S.W.A.T. teams did at Columbine? Secured the perimeter and waited for the shooting to stop. They just like to wear the stuff and try and convince themselves their bad ass_s. Face it, most cops join for the pension and the detail money - service to others is low on the list.

In Iraq, the Marines kicked in door after door in clearing cities and towns, street-by-street, house by house, all day long, every day for months. And they didn't have half the crap the townie cops who think they're half-a_s ninjas have. All they had was a gun, a flack jacket and pair of balls.

Or... and here's a novel concept... they could *refrain* from spending the money.

Our government is like some of my idiot friends that live paycheck to paycheck and then complain about not having any money. 50" LED TVs, going out for dinner 3x/week and driving a new car are not an essential part of living and is why those people don't have any money. Just like APCs, snow cone machines and the millions of other things the government wastes aren't essential for getting their jobs done.

You're not only obviously right, and why anyone would nitpick about why it might or might not be necessary shows how we have come to accept such stuff. The question now seems to be how much or what else rather than how about no, none of it. And very little wondering about why the Federal Government must do it. Here, we're wondering why some police force in a quiet town in nowhere is being armed at great expense when it doesn't seem to need it. One problem with Federal spending is that it is supposed to benefit the entire nation, not just selected locals. So if the Feds are going to arm police in State A, then they should do so in States B-Z. The money spent and the "protection" should be distributed equally. So Podunk Nowhere gets its stuff. Is anyone wondering why the Federal government is, or should it be, arming local police rather than the locality or the State doing so?

[/QUOTE Debutch] does anyone know?

just speculation ...but it seems to me that there's a certain part of the American population
that could suddenly take up arms and try to wage an internal war against the USA....

at that point it's a little to late to say: Hey! we need M16's too!

[/QUOTE Debutch] does anyone know?

just speculation ...but it seems to me that there's a certain part of the American population
that could suddenly take up arms and try to wage an internal war against the USA....

at that point it's a little to late to say: Hey! we need M16's too!

I thought that too. But there's another part of the American population that scoffs at conspiracy thinking. I've already been accused of pontificating--didn't want to sound like a conspiracist as well. :smash: But there's also an ominous other side of this. Rather than localities and States being prepared, the Federal Gov. is planning to outgun its own citizens when it already has overwhelming force. Didn't the founders create the Second Ammendment, among other reasons, to protect the citizens from government tyranny? It's been said that one of the first things a dictatorship requires is the disarming of its citizens. I suppose having bigger guns than the citizens can do the job as well. And, since Federal troops are not supposed to be used against the American populace within this country, arming local troops can be a surrogate to the same ends. Is there really a certain portion of Americans that you speak of that want to take up arms against the USA? Or is that portion wanting to take up arms against oppression that threatens what they consider the USA?

I don't think either "threat" is real. But you can see how it can be looked at in more than one way. My pontificatorial opinion is that those at the federal level simply use every opportunity, consciously, unconsciously, beaucratically, or for whatever reason to expand the federal influence, thus its power--which lessens State and local power. I think, especially at this point in time where we are so used, as a population, to viewing more and more problems as a federal issue, I think the feds just naturally do this, and, further, have the excuse that local govts. can't afford what's "necessary," but the Federal Gvt. can--not really since it's already trillions in debt and has no way of ever paying for even larger unfunded mandates--but who cares?

Armed Bank Robbery - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqfrr26yTSY)

Armed Bank Robbery - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oqfrr26yTSY)

I notice here that the Federal Gvt. did not step in or supply the better firepower that subdued the well armed robbers. The Constitution does not grant the Federal Gvt. police power, it is reserved, therefore to the States. In article 1, section 8 where it talks about providing for and calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union (Federal and Constutional laws, not local or State laws)--so there is no problem providing the national guard with weapons, but there is no Federal jurisdiction to provide them for local police.

The Federal Government is very jealous of its power. It insists that States do not encroach on that power. It has sued the State of Arizona for trying to assist the Federal Gvt. in finding illegal aliens, even though Congress has provided agencies such as ICE and others to work with local law enforcement. It insists that the States must keep hands off, even though it asks us citizens to be on the alert for terrorists and report any suspect activity that might look like incipient terrorism. But when it comes to encroaching on State and individual rights and powers, the Federal Government has a long, "progressive" tradition of doing so--for our own good.