Donald Trump and Sheriff Joe Clarke (courtesy newstalk1130.iheart.com)/

Subbing for WISN’s Dan O’Donnell, Sheriff David Clarke asked Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump about various law and order issues. [Click here to  listen.] During the course of the interview, The Donald addressed the Pentagon’s controversial 1033 program. A quick history . . .

Starting in 1997, the program has transferred hundreds of millions of dollars worth of ex-mil equipment to some 8k state and local police forces. Per year. Everything from generators to armored vehicles to snow blowers to fully-automatic rifles.

In May 2015, in the aftermath of the Ferguson riots, facing criticism of police militarization, President Obama signed Executive Order 13688, limiting and prohibiting certain types of equipment (e.g., rifles of .50-caliber and higher, tracked vehicles, “flash bangs” and other explosives, and grenade launchers). Mandating better inventory control and after-action reports.

Sheriff Clarke ain’t got time for that. Neither does Donald J. Trump. Sheriff Clarke assumes that Mr. Trump is familiar with the program and asks if he’d rescind the EO, characterizing the equipment involved as “military surplus protective gear, things like ballistic helmets, ballistic shields, equipment to keep [police] and their community safe.”

“I would do that in a heartbeat. I thought it was ridiculous and I think the whole concept is ridiculous of what they did. And I mean all of a sudden people are going to start saying now we feel much better because now they don’t have much protection because that’s basically what you’re saying in a form. But absolutely 100 percent yes.”

As I intimate above, I doubt Mr. Trump is familiar with the 1033 program or the issues surrounding it. This is not the biggest deal in terms of The People of the Gun voting for Mr. Trump — what with his clearly superior position on gun rights and the chances that Ms. Clinton could very well do the same thing.

But anyone wary of the real estate magnate’s [alleged] megalomania should note that he wants the cops to tool up Big Style.

Just sayin’ . . .

129 Responses to BREAKING: Donald Trump Calls for Police Militarization

  1. Given that the question was limited to protective equipment, I don’t see a problem. The issue has always been about the weapons and heavy equipment, not minor things like plate carrier and helmets.

    • I was thinking the same thing. Sheriff Clarke didn’t ask about MRAPs, fragmentation grenades, NVGs or M4 rifles. He asked specifically about helmets and shields which are not a problem.

    • Agreed. The terrorists, whether Islamic or racists, are usually pretty well equipped. Why should the police respond with a pistol and a level III vest as their only equipment? Do they need MRAP’s? Not so much, but good PPE and weapons are a must in this day and age.

      • The order covers things it shouldn’t. Rescinding the broad order and replacing it with a more limited version is common sense.

      • Fair point but I don’t worry about the vehicles that much. The only thing that bothers me about 1033 is the cop’s ability to get things civilians can’t such as post 1986 full autos and explosives.

        Vehicles that would basically match the cops capabilities are available to civilians at prices ranging from around $6000 to… well how big is your bank account?

        I can go jump over to another website right now and buy a BTR-60 for less than $17K (plus BATFE license and certification that it’s been de-miled.) or if I feel the need to go tracked I can get an Austrian Saurer 4K 4FA for about $25K and it requires no licenses.

        • Police departments can get machineguns and explosives just fine without the DRMO program…… Most of what the depatments end up with is broken/obsolete crap that usually ends up in the garbage or a back lot collecting dust. Only about 10% of that crap is useable (notice how i didnt say awesome or top of the line). The departments that put in orders for stuff like MRAPs and M4s either cant afford brand new,more police appropriate equipment, or suffer from the Chipotle ninja syndrome…… More commonly known as “gear queernes” and end up with several dusty boxes of useless crap in their department garages.

      • The order covers everything, so does the initiating order for “Homeland Security” sharing of information that was supposed to overcome the POS (D)-ness of Billary Clinton’s Jamie Gorelick blocking of inter-service sharing of information to protect “I don’t know what sex or “is” is” (D) Clinton, B. Impeached, instead it blocked the sharing of information related to terrorist activity and negated a full-view approach pre 9/11.

        Now, how does the [everyone’s whipped up about the] NSA justify their lack of providing the FBI (holy cow we cant find Hillary’s emails either) stance, but they can wheedle the date/time/stamp geo-located cell phone of someone whose made an overdrawn debit card pizza purchase (not the foodstamp ones, the taxpaying kind)?

        (Your stupid neighbors who needed a job, a/k/a) The government cannot protect you, they tell you every day. They use the same line to attempt to get you give up your rights, give them more power and more of your money.

    • Pwersurge it’s because that particular executive order isn’t limited to just those types of protective equipment. If you read the entire text of that EO you’ll quickly see how far it goes. Nobody ever reads the entire text of any law or E.O. or other regulations, most people don’t even read beyond the first sentence much less the beyond the first paragraph at the most. Even politicians are guilty of this too. That’s how laws get passed like the 1994 violent crime high capacity ban got passed. The whole first page of it said it only banned 17 different types of guns but it wound up outlawing 176 different kinds. All of it was written about in the following pages beyond page one.

      • One thing I forgot to mentioi , now I’m not saying that providing these items to police departments is a good or a bad idea. What I am saying is that the ruling goes further down the rabbit hole than most people think. If nothing else the politicians are attempting to keep the public from finding out how far so ya gotta wonder why they don’t want you or me to know…

      • So you would prefer the “nothing” in O’bung’hole’s current stance? How about we split the difference? The first step to doing so is rescinding the current bit of stupidity that more or less bans ALL transfers of equipment. Then, as I said above, we can talk about what we do and do not want the police to have. That being said, having thousands of vests and plates gathering dust when they could be saving cop’s lives is retarded.

        I’m not a huge fan of the modern police force. I think they hired too many combat vets who have no idea that policing the streets of suburbia is not the same as running patrols in Iraq. Being one of those vets, I can tell you that putting me in a law enforcement role would be pants on head retarded. My training never emphasized the social skills vital to being an effective constable. My, and many other vets, first reaction to of violence is maximum force in minimum time. I don’t think I need to explain why this is a horrible mindset for a police officer.

        That being said… I don’t see a reason why we should let the DOD discard thousands of vests or helmets or hell, even NVGs when they could be put to practical use. I think we can all draw the line at crew served weapons and armored vehicles, but there is a middle ground in there somewhere.

        • Serge:

          The issue you bring up with training is a significant one.

          A friend of mine’s husband just got done with the Academy and he was royally pissed off by it. It’s run by a bunch of MEPS rejects who think they know how military training works but don’t because they’ve never seen it. They teach aggression but nearly no restraint or discipline so it’s effectively unbridled aggression. They also fail to teach skills, instead mostly they teach reliance on tools and gear.

    • The EO does not apply “only to protective gear” but go on pretending that just because Clarke said that it counts for anything. He basically lied to Donald about this policy, and the Don fell for it. Gonna be great when his joint chiefs or secretary tells him we “must” invade a nation or pass gun control.

      • That’s right, but there’s no reason why it SHOULD cover PPE, which is why it’s a bad order that needs to go away. That’s the point.

      • Not necessarily. Maybe he lives in one of the forty or so states where the outcome of the election is in no way in question. If you live somewhere that Trump or Clinton is certain to win by 15 points, you have the luxury of voting however you want.

        • @doesky2

          An adult votes like his actions are a representation of his integrity.

          Children blame other people for their perceived woes.

        • “An adult votes like his actions are a representation of his integrity.”

          That line of reasoning would have ended popular voting in this country long ago, if one assumes everyone is a person of integrity. Since we still see millions voting for candidates of various elected positions, one must conclude the person of “integrity” is a rare bird, and never votes.

        • I assume very few people have any integrity whatsoever. Thankfully I don’t need to use someone else’s as my yardstick.

          I am quite comfortable with not voting for either big party candidate and will not lose any sleep over one or the other winning. None of us can expect a change if we aren’t willing to sack up and take the bruises that come with bringing it about.

          This is my hill, and I’m willing to die on it.

      • No. We’ll have the Republicans to thank for fielding a freak show in the primary with no real position on anything but getting a republican into office.

        The Donald (ass that he is) made statements with little concern for “the way things are done”.

        That resonated with a lot of the public for good or bad.

        The Dems blamed Ralph Nader when Gore lost. Al Gore is the reason Al Gore lost.

        If the libertarian ticket had positions that I could get behind, I’d think about it. But they don’t and I’ll vote for a narcissist over a marxist every time.

    • Whose Johnson? Must be another also-ran whose name will be forgotten in a couple of years because they had absolutely no chance of winning and those who voted for him/her only succeeded in putting a Democrat in the White House.

    • So your conscious is good with having Hildebeast solidifying an anti-American constitution-shredding Leftist dominated SCOTUS for the next 40+ years?

      You will be part of the blame for that catastrophe and you’ll have to live with that for the rest of your life.

      An adult realizes the choice is between a known disaster and an unknown.
      Don’t pretend that there isn’t a logical choice.

      • I’ll be just fine with not voting for a sociopath because some people have decided he might be better than the other sociopath.

        • You know that Hildebeast will put anti-2A judges and anti-constitutionalists on the SCOTUS.

          You’re NOT SURE what kind of judges Trump will appoint.

          You cannot disagree with the above.
          That alone should compel everyone to pull the Trump lever.

          Simply, what liberties America has left will be lost if Hildebeast is elected.
          Someone declining to sit out the election is endorsing that loss of liberty.
          Nobody gets the luxury of saying “It wasn’t my fault”

        • @doesky2

          Hillary will absolutely appoint anti-2a justices.

          I have zero clue what Trump will do, but given his history of not only voting democrat, but giving his money and time to the highest bidder, I suspect his appointees won’t be any friendlier to liberty than say, Justice Roberts.

          The only thing that compels me to vote one way or another is a candidates commitment to his/her beliefs when they happen to fall in line with mine. Hillary Clintons principles are diametrically opposed to mine and Trump has zero core beliefs as best I can tell.

          As far as eroding liberties, the Republican Party has eroded individual liberty as quickly as the democrats, they just have different pet Liberty punching bags. Frankly, I am inclined to trust a Republican (this week) with my individual freedoms exactly as much as I am a lifelong Democrat.

          And no, it surely isn’t my fault. The two generations before mine convinced themselves that DDT was going to eradicate life as we know it and that the republicans were the party of Reagan despite the fact that over the last 100 years he’s been the outlier.

          I will vote third party despite not caring for the third party candidate, knowing that there are more people in said third party that gave a fucking clue than the alternatives. Romney was the first and last time I held my nose, because I was dumb enough to think for a moment that a vote for the “wrong guy” was actually a vote for the other guy.

          Never again for me, and hopefully people like you wake up enough to do the honest thing in our lifetime.

  2. *sigh* Oh boy………

    I think you get a reversal on 1033, which is to say an increase of 1033 access in the wake of the police shootings of 2016 regardless of a Trump or Clinton(yuck) presidency. You hope for a reversal of anti gun laws under a Trump presidency, and you get a hope for surviving 4 to 8 years as a gun owner and EXPECT increasing anti gun legislation under a Clinton presidency.

    Hope on one hand for a better deal, and an expectation of losing more in a raw deal.
    My worries of a Trump presidency are not erased by this, but as long as the focus is far more about protective gear vs offensive gear, I can square the circle with that.

    • Read the order. I wouldn’t call a tracked vehicle or explosives (see: Dallas robot) “protective gear.”

      • Indeed RF, but we are stuck with a non-choice and a hope for the best but expect the worst choice.
        So either tacit admissions of increasing 1033 for cops in order to combat “homegrown extremism” on the left or we all reallly hope that Trump will help us, but we are probably best served by expecting the worst on the right.

        I think we are now inside the definition of the phrase, “between a rock and a hard place”. If I prayed I would be doing so now, I just hope there is time left for me to finish my business here at home and get settled in, in another state before the whole sorry mess comes tumbling. I hope, but I prepare for the worst case scenario as we all do.

    • So what are you going to do, sit home and je*k off while Clinton takes the White House? Get off your high horse about how you would run the world if you were in charge and keep Clinton and Kaine out of office. Trust me, Kaine is an even bigger threat than Clinton.

      • Unlike them, I don’t want to “run the world”.

        Mostly, I want to be left alone. Since that is unlikely to happen, I am preparing to defend/fight.

      • from what i see on Kaines record, he only recommends a mag capacity ban, and explicitly noted ban on “assault” guns would not work as makers would work around it. We have lived through that before – not a big deal. He also noted he would back expansion of background checks to all private sales – i dont think this could be tracked, but who knows. no, i am not that scared of Kaine…trump worries more everyday – he should just say nothing.

  3. since the Supreme Court declared that Sheriffs overrule the Feds, I’m glad that the Sheriffs might have military weapons in case the Feds bring theirs for Martial Law!

  4. Everything from generators to armored vehicles to snow blowers to fully-automatic rifles.

    That’s insanity! There’s no way in the world that police should have snow blowers.

  5. I have no problem with PO PO tooling up for jihadi’s. When they tool up and roll armor vehicles for peaceful protest…that boils my blood.

  6. The recent attacks against the cops will sway public opinion in favor of the cops and giving them any equipment felt needed to make them safer. I don’t think any candidate at this point would go on record as saying the cops don’t need this gear.

    Would you rather have Trump letting the cops have APC’s that will rust in the back lot of some podunk cop shop or would you rather have hillary give them the tracks and the funds to go door to door with them?

    Trump 2016

  7. Good. Everything should militarize. Make everything and everyone a hard target. Let’s call for more civilian militarization most of all though.

      • As LEO, I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again. Give us some decent level iv armor and regular, no frills ARs that any citizen can buy and decent training and we will be equipped to handle 99.9 percent of situations. We don’t need all that extra stuff

  8. Police need to be able to fight terrorists equipped with modern sporting rifles and body armor. The whole armored vehicle thing came about because LEOs were trying to deal with crack houses and dealers who were better equipped than they are. Trump is not going to continence the police becoming a military force to enforce a police state. Period. That is far more likely under Clinton and Kaine than under Trump and Pence.

  9. What, Donald doesn’t believe in constitutional limits anymore than Hillary or Obama? Shocked, SHOCKED I tell you.

  10. Trump may not be a career politician, but he sure has those natural politician instincts of not admitting he has no clue what someone is asking him about, and spouting off a generic non-answer…

  11. That’s the danger with Donald, you have a guy who claims to be pro 2a but at the same time doesn’t understand why there are supposed to be limitations on government.

  12. Trump has already promised to repeal all of Obama’s EOs, regardless of content. I doubt he’s suddenly going to change his positions when a black LEO asks him to keep to it, especially when the LEO makes it sound really harmless.

    I don’t have a problem with the program itself beyond that the NFA doesn’t let me get in on the action, and that’s a problem with the NFA. Local LE wasting people’s money on useless crap to play military is a problem with the local LE and hardly something to be fixed by forcing stuff that would be useful in their hands (Flash bangs and grenade launchers that can fire the wide variety of less lethal stuff is the most obvious) to be stuck in a National Guard armory that will be destroyed in the first 10 minutes of war big enough to involve the NG anyways.

  13. I dunno. I have noticed that when yokel local governments get expensive play toys that sooner or later the battle of the local yokel budget kicks in and the play toys quietly disappear after gathering dust after a few years.
    Usually, the local yokels just have enough problems financing the more mundane things that they do have, as the money is blown on a lot more things than fancy play toys for the cops.

  14. There is no good choice this election. Not that there ever really is anyway. These candidates make Obama and Romney look good. Sad. Both Dems and republicans seem to be against different aspects of the Constitution.

  15. I dislike both Clinton and Trump. The difference between them is that Clinton’s policies would hurt me personally and Trump’s won’t. That leads me to vote for Trump while holding my nose tightly.

    Gary Johnson, the Libertarian candidate, has a wild card strategy for winning the Presidency. To win, a candidate must get at least 50% of the electoral college votes. Simply getting more than any of the others isn’t enough. If that happens, the issue is resolved by Congress who must choose one out of the top three candidates. Republicans, who control Congress, won’t vote for Clinton under any circumstances. The Republican establishment detests Trump almost as much. Johnson/Weld would be appealing to the anybody-but-Trump faction. Unfortunately for us, Johnson doesn’t appear to be a strong opponent of gun control and Weld actually has a gun control history. (To me, that disqualifies them as real libertarians.)

  16. Some of the vehicles are a massive waste of time and money. Ditto for the beat up M16A1s and A2s we used to have. We turned those in to replace them with somewhat better Sig M400s.

    As to the protective equipment, I’m all for it. I’m definitely still voting for the Donald.

  17. The police are civilians. So that is us. We will get those items if we need them. Either cooperatively with our oath keeping cop friends. Or we will take them if needed. The latter only in extreme unlikely circumstances of course.

  18. Most of you are missing the point. Whether it’s police militarization or the nuclear triad (see his incoherent response to THAT question in the debate), the fact is that Trump really doesn’t know what the F he’s talking about. He’s clueless on the issues and thinks he and his “good brain” will figure it all out on the fly. If this dilettante should happen to win, he’ll either resign midterm or else not run for re-election.

    He’s lazy and ignorant and too big headed and pig headed to do anything about either. Mr. Big Time NY and International Real Estate Mogul is so far out of his league that it’s painful to watch. He’s going to get taken advantage of by those D.C. sharks faster than a starry eyed waif in Manhatten fresh of the bus from Boise. Harry Reid already has the CIA feeding him phony intel and the buffoon doesn’t even realize it.

    • I’m glad someone else has noticed. I really hope the people who say that he’ll surround himself with good advisers are right, because he doesn’t seem to have the temperament or intelligence to even be a halfway decent president (and let’s be honest, “halfway decent” is probably the best we can hope for in modern politics).

      • amen….we get an agenda ridden angry woman, or a spoiled big mouth dummy. we are screwed. I want Mitt back, sorry.

  19. I don’t have any problem with giving out more personal protection equipment. As in helmets vests and such.
    But anything of a military nature that’s offensive in design. Weaponry. Id have a very large issue with. Id have an issue even with vehicles. Its one thing to defend yourself. Its a whole other ball of wax to give LEOs any offensive equipment.
    That they already have plenty of. Too much in fact.
    Anybody here ever been in the basement of 1 Police Plaza in NYC???
    That place should be sealed off from use.
    Just pour in cement and never let any of that former military equipment be used EVER. Least of all by police.

  20. Well, yes I to have a lot of concern if “local/state police ” continue on rampant militarization. Remember were seeing a lot of negative outcome in regions like the East Coast Comi-bloc nation states, and negative factors on the West Coast as well. Locations on the East coast where Gun Laws are Draconian, and Local /State police are in absolute control over a US citizens 2nd amendment rights * ( privileges ) *. And the Police in these ares have the mentality of a combat navy SEAL. Which “absolutely does nothing for free citizenry!” Other than impinges upon the rights, and liberties of all US citizens! These areas suffer from “very aggressive traffic stops, stops/frisks, and unlawful questioning, Unconstitutional roadblocks, etc…You name, you shouldn’t have to explain it ! Militarization is not compatible with a free society! You need a so called heavy weapons response to some kind of “terrorism “. Go convince a governor and a judge to release a regional SWAT teams, or The State National Guard….Under strict “Law Enforcement controls/ with proper checks and balances! “

  21. Why do so many of you folks believe the police who are at a 500 – 1000 to 1 numerical disadvantage in many cities, should not have free MRAPS to help protect us from rioting, vandalizing, looting anarchist dung?

    I am anazed.
    LOL

    • Because, when the time comes, and if the police are on the wrong side… I don’t want them armed any better than me.

  22. TTAG is so hell bent against a Trump presidency that I’m starting to wonder if Hitlery or Soros is funding it.

    • Yep… true colors. Police should only be eqiipped to defend themselves from bricks and chest rounds… lol.

      It would be wrong if they had the equipment to protect businesses and residents from rioting arsonist thugs… LOL

      .

    • Not against a Trump presidency — in as much as I’m really really really against a Clinton presidency. Equally, we should go into a Trump presidency with our eyes open. Or any other presidency, really.

      • Exactly my position. Gee whiz Donnie was a dem fairly recently and was quoted as saying he’d run repub ’cause they’re EZ to fool…Cruz lost and will have no part in the Trump admin.

      • Equally, we should go into a Trump presidency with our eyes open. Or any other presidency, really.
        Mark Twain — ‘No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe while the legislature is in session.’
        Politicians lie whenever their lips move.

  23. Is it any wonder a “Law and Order” politician would want police to be better armed and equipped than any potential law-breaker? “Law and Order” abounds when the “authorities” overwhelm and intimidate bad actors into submission. From street gangs to Congress, when detection, action, conviction are swift and certain, deterrence works. Legal or not, when Rudy initiated “stop and frisk” in NYC, crime rates did take a notable dip during his tenure. When bad actors conclude, at whatever level, that there is nothing to stop them, they will act badly. What is happening in Europe, vis-a-vis terror attacks, stems from the knowledge the public and politicians pose no mitigating threat. It is what we all claim here….harden the soft targets and mass shootings will decline in number and frequency. So pass laws, enforce laws, obey laws, put teeth in the consequences for violating the law and you will have “Law and Order”.

    • As far as terrorist attacks go here in the U.S. and in Europe, we are too soft for real deterence. Feeding their sorry dead carcasses to the hogs instead of letting an Imam supervise a proper muslim funeral is deterence. Feeding the ones captured alive to the hogs would be real deterence.

  24. I don’t see a problem with donations/transfers of old .mil equipment to the local constabulary *IF AND ONLY IF* they can provide a justification in a clear framework for the process. You want NIJ lvl 3 and 4 armor for a SWAT team? Okay. You want a plate carrier for evey officer? No. Not just no, but hell no. We absolutely do not need to militarize every officer. If we do, then what is the point of a dedicated SWAT team? To answer the same call as a second string with the same equipment, but better training? How does that make sense?

    And who pays for the maintenance of all of this equipment? Why, the local tax, payer who never would have agreed to fund it anyway, of course. Point in case, the issuance of full SCUBA gear and RHIBs to several local PDs in Alabama who are nowhere near a body of water deeper than a duck pond. If .mil has extra equipment, then that is exactly what surplus sales are for.

    Police are civilians like the rest of us (mostly, I presume). They have *NO* reason to possess items that us plebs supposedly are incapable of being trusted with. Despite my issues with ALL unconstitutional 2A laws, the least that could be expected is an equal application of said laws.

    • When your Occupy Wall Street or Black Panthers, or name your left wing group, decide to march your street and burn your homes you might wish your popo could have a few extra weapons to mitigate the disparity of force these dung encrusted mobs present.

      .

      • Or we could solve the problem ourselves as was always intended. The police are there to *respond* to crime. They are not there to protect you. If someone accosts me with violent intention, I will neither wait, nor rely on police intervention.

        As far as your scenario referenced above, that’s what we call a ‘target rich environment’, and I have the advantage as the defender.

        • Yep the Police protect us all the time by thwarting criminals. That is their job.

          Free MRAPS would be really nice tools for police to have when thwarting hippies and BLMers that converge by the hundreds or thousands to endanger us.

          It’s really that simple.

        • Krog. If you could count on your neighbors to form a militia at a moments notice when danger approaches you might have a point.

          But nowadays folks are not going to form in the street and move out to meet the danger and keep it away from their homes and families.

          What’s more likely to happen is each man that is armed will bunker up on his own property. Where it’s easy for a gang or mob to burn him out and overwhelm him.

          Armored vehicles have a place in our modern world. Extracting citizens while under fire is just one use for them.

        • “The Police protect us all the time by thwarting criminals.”

          Except, of course, when it’s decided to give “those who wish to destroy room to do so”.

          If you’re counting on the police to ride to your rescue in an MRAP, just be prepared to be f–ked. Because if it’s gotten bad enough that they truly need armored vehicles, they’re probably not coming.

      • Except it is the cops who have been doing the home invasions and burning down homes. Funny that.

        • Home invasion – literally every single no-knock raid. Radley Balko’s “Rise of the Warrior Cop” documents the criteria for this sort of home invasion went from fairly strict in the 70’s to nothing more than a routine rubber-stamping by pliant judges.

          Burning down homes – forgot about MOVE in Philadelphia? Or how cops use flashbangs without a second thought, maiming people and causing property damage (including burning down homes)

          https://www.propublica.org/article/flashbangs

          Now from you, please show citations and sources for OWS or Black Panthers burning down homes in roving gangs. Or is it just the usual bootlicker scaremongering? Remember, SCOTUS ruled that police have absolutely zero obligation to protect the citizenry.

      • Not often I agree with More Dead Soldiers, but I concur with him here whole heartedly. Cops are way too often given a pass on unacceptable behavior with the idea that they might possibly get one criminal, maybe.

        @JWM you’re right that most people will put their head up their butt and not lend a hand to stop a threat. That is their choice (and a sad statement about our current society), but I will still fight if pushed. Otherwise, regardless if the cops have APCs or not, a raucous crowd will still try to burn down my house in that scenario. So no matter what, I still have to fight. In that case, why would I give someone (who is supposed to be my servant) the power to be my master?

        @LarryB, no they still don’t need equipment denied to the average citizen. And they are certainly not ‘free’. The local department may have been bequeathed them, but they then have to pay for all the maintenance and fuel. Not cheap, or needed in 99% or communities. If police are so hard pressed to need an MRAP or up-armored HMMV, then it is long past time to activate the National Guard in that state. Quite frankly in those two scenarios you listed, I say use a flamethrower. Those are still mostly legal and very useful for pest control. Sorry, ‘crowd dispersion’. I have a hard time seeing that scum as human.

        • Krog. The equipment is a minor thing in the master/servant dynamic. But if your house and those you care for are under the torch the cops may, and nothing is a sure thing, be able to rescue or re-inforce if they have the proper gear.

          Without the proper gear the best intentions of the best cops are nothing but wasted emotion.

        • Sorry JWM, when the cops are so pressed to respond in an MRAP, they won’t be running a hot extract. Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not me. It is no different for an armored vehicle.

          If a SWAT team can justify its use and expense, that’s one thing. Billy Bob PD having one to roll on a traffic stop, and say they maybe might could possibly kinda sorta use one for something more serious? No.

        • “Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not me”?

          I know they’re not LEGALLY obligated to protect you directly, but I think most cops today would be rather insulted by that statement. Sure, they carry guns to protect themselves but they wouldn’t BE there in a high-risk situation in the first place if they weren’t also trying to protect YOU, to a certain degree!

          This stuff mostly goes in the category of “better to have and not need than need and not have”. You can’t argue about whether it’s being used properly, and it can’t actually be used properly, if they don’t first have it.

        • “but I think most cops today would be rather insulted by that statement”

          Ask a cop what he values more: “officer safety” or “civilian safety”.

          Cops will gladly let a man they shot bleed to death while “securing the perimeter” for an hour or two.

        • It’s not a question of which is more important. Of course, they care about going home at the end of shift more than anything else. Can you blame them? Anybody who expects a selfless sacrificial savior in exchange for what they get paid and have to put up with is an idiot.

          But the statement was “they carry a gun to protect themselves, not me”, which is an incredibly insulting thing to say about the vast majority of good, well-intentioned, and honorable people in law enforcement.

          And your comment about letting somebody bleed out is radical left-wing cop hater language straight from photographyisnotacrime.com. It’s also incredibly insulting and you are an idiot if you really think that ever happens. Hint hint–there’s a difference between following established policy/protocol/training and “letting him bleed out”.

        • “But the statement was “they carry a gun to protect themselves, not me”, which is an incredibly insulting thing to say about the vast majority of good, well-intentioned, and honorable people in law enforcement.”

          Your delusion is contradicted by both legal reality and official police policy. Police enforce the law with both threat of and actual violence, their gun is the instrument of that violence.

          “And your comment about letting somebody bleed out is radical left-wing cop hater language straight from photographyisnotacrime.com”

          It is fact. Just ask Jose Guerena’s widow. Official policy and protocol is to let their victims die if there is even the slightest risk to the cops, and cops have no problem following this policy.

        • Yeah, ok… thanks for establishing your complete lack of ability to use logic in any way. “It’s a fact”? One incident is sufficient to define it as “fact”???!!! And even in that one incident, there’s so much missing information you have zero basis for your claim. How do you know that the medic on the SWAT team didn’t check him immediately and determine there was nothing that could be done to save him? Heck, if 5 SWAT guys shot him at that range and he WASN’T killed immediately then they ought to be kicked off SWAT! It was obviously an unfortunate incident with a lot of things going wrong, but it’s ludicrous to think it supports your insane narrative.

          Please go back to your echo chamber and stay away from gun blogs. I don’t want any association with people like you–you discredit what people like me are trying to do in defense of the 2nd Amendment.

        • It is fact because the official police excuse for letting Guerena bleed out was that they were “following policy”. The entire episode was videotaped by SWAT themselves and it shows the wounded and bleeding Guerena alone on the ground while the police were filmed barring paramedics from treating him. He was alive for more than an hour before expiring. The police admitted to all of this in the settlement with the widow, but naturally, they admitted no fault because policy was followed.

          You refuse to believe this, but still you posit he was checked (not even treated) by a SWAT medic, without any proof. In reality the cops were ransacking the victim’s home looking for contraband (of which, they found none).

          You can find other cases of this policy in action. For example, the Cheshire Connecticut home invasion where the police maintained a perimeter while a woman and her children were raped and murdered, then defended their actions by saying they wanted to preserve officer safety. Protect and serve themselves, I suppose.

      • Those assholes try to burn down MY home and they’ll wish THEY had some extra military weapons.

    • Kroglikepie, I find it astounding that you draw the line at providing rifle plates to regular officers. It’s so disappointing that a member of law enforcement might come onto a gun blog and find such opinions expressed. What an insult to all the brave men an women out putting their lives at risk every day to protect people they don’t know–you don’t even think enough of them to think they deserve a little bit more personal protection against the threat of a BLM or hadji type with a rifle that they face every day? Hello… did you not hear about what happened in Dallas? 12 officers shot with… A RIFLE!!!!!

      Anyway, I usually find myself agreeing with libertarians in theory but you guys have to get out of the theoretical and into the real world. Like it or not, the mission of police today is to protect you (as a group), and not leave it to you to protect yourself. When the BLMers are rioting or the jihad is kicking into gear in your neighborhood or Katrina hits your town, you’re gonna wish the local police are on their way with armored vehicles and big guns because your little neighborhood militia force is going to be nothing but a figment of your imagination. That America is dead and gone, aside from maybe in some western states.

      • Mike, we do not have a gendarmarie. We do not have a paramilitary police. We do not need, nor want them here. This is not an issue of telling cops they don’t need any sort of protective gear. This is an issue of keeping the civilian and military lines clear and distinct.

        In such scenarios are you described, the police are quite frankly inconsequential. It sounds harsh, but is consistently proven true. There is a reason SWAT forces and Riot control training were created. If you think you can up-armor each beat cop and suddenly the need for dedicated heavily armed, armored, and trained forces goes away, well, you are mistaken. Providing dedicated teams (i.e. SWAT) with the tools and skills they need to accomplish difficult tasks is one thing, turning every officer into RoboCop is a whole ‘nother, and unwanted, ball game.

        My points were that we do not need to militarize the police, we do not need to provide expensive unutilized systems that burden local communities with steep maintenance costs, we do not need to hand out .gov toys with no defined schedule of requirements or needs, and we for damn sure do not need to have the police have access to anything that civilians supposedly “can’t”.

        • Kroglikepie, again… 12 officers were just shot in Dallas with a RIFLE. Then soon after that 5 more were shot in Baton Rouge WITH A RIFLE. Yet you think it’s going too far to allow officers to strap a little 10″x12″ rifle plate (which happens to be rather heavy and uncomfortable to wear) over their most vital organs just to give themselves a little bit better chance of surviving when a psycho living in a fantasy world created by Internet idiots decides to target them?

          You know what, when you and your Threeper buddies decide it’s time to start shooting police officers, don’t worry… there will still be plenty of unprotected body parts to target–you can go for gut shots, groin shots, or go for the gold and aim for the head. That little rifle plate won’t do too much to slow you down, you’ll be ok.

        • So basically, Kroglikepie, you’re saying that out of fear of this theoretical boogieman “militarization”, you would rather officers get injured and die because they weren’t as fully equipped as they could be for the very real threats that are emerging in this modern world.

          Do you really think that police administrators and chiefs and sheriffs across the country are sitting around saying “how can we do more to grow our tyrannical police state and do more to abuse civil rights and hurt innocent people”? Good grief, what world do you live in???!!!! Practically everything they do in law enforcement is a RESPONSE. The threats are getting worse, the world is getting more dangerous, and they’re just trying desperately to keep up! They’re usually behind because of the scale their working on and bureaucratic inertia, but it’s ridiculous for you to consider their motives sinister.

          You think this stuff is causal or correlative? Are they trying to be more like the military, or do the threats demand that they take steps that may incidentally have something in common with the military? It’s people like you who are upset when police uniforms look too “militarized” who are the reason why 10’s of thousands of officers across the country have to suffer through long shifts every day in uncomfortable uniforms because the more comfortable ones look too scary to you. Who are you to say what we want or need? It’s not your life on the line, you just sit back in your comfortable chair in front of your computer and declare what’s reasonable and what’s not as if yours is the only opinion that matters. You disgust me and I apologize on your behalf to any law enforcement people who read this and I hope that they don’t think you are representative of the rest of us gun enthusiasts.

          Here’s a little reality for you… everything you get upset about is a direct product of the PEOPLE in charge, not the equipment and gear available to the officers. You could have the Rangers on road patrol backed up by the Delta boys and things could be great and you could have the most wussified police department possible and they could still screw things up terribly. Welcome to democracy–if you don’t like what your local police are doing, work on changing the guys at the top, don’t complain about how the guy at the bottom is getting a piece of gear that scares you.

        • Wow, okay, so I’m the bad guy for having the crazy idea that cops should be a part of their community and never forget that they too are “civilians”. I mean, under your logic, we should just roll over and create an American Gestapo force that can do whatever they want because it is merely a response to growing threats. A bit of a logical stretch, but pretty much your logical conclusion.

          The police are PAID as their JOB to enfore the law. Not to “protect us”. Crap, that is usually the rationale for passing stupid laws in the first place, right? Have I said anywhere that police deserve to have hightened risk while on the job? No. And please don’t try to describe body armor to me. I’ve designed and worn more than you will probably see in this lifetime. Their is a world of difference between a ballistic vest (regardless of capabilities) and ballistic plates. Under your idea, why stop at just the front and rear plates? Why not neck, groin, pauldron, shin, thigh, wrist, side, and a ballistic face mask? I mean, only the best for officers. Damned be the cost, weight, training, maintenance, effectiveness of weighted down soldiers (oops, police officers), or the silly idea that police are members of the community the serve. You know, that silly idea that does more to reduce violence and crime then tanking up the police.

          And yes, 12 officers were shot at with rifles in Dallas. How often does that happen? Honestly? And do you have any idea how easy it is to overcome the V50 to penetrate most plates? For example, I built a 5.56 AR with a 20″ barrel. That is capable of pushing M193 projectiles fast enough to penetrate NIJ lvl 3 plates roughly 80% of the time OUT TO 50 YARDS. Any crook who had a couple of brain cells to rub together can easily counter strapping plates on people. Providing plates to every officer is not a panacea to keep them from getting hurt, but it for damn sure alienates people when a responding officer for a traffic stop shows up armed and armored for WWIII.

          Do you know how they stopped the shitbag in Dallas? They detonated a charge placed on a robot. From my preliminary research, they blew up an $800,000 robot to kill one man. In this case, perhaps understandable. Do you then think that every time the police receive a call about a man with a gun, they can safely assume it is a repeat of Dallas and are justified in wiring up more robots to ‘neutralize’ suspects? According to your logic above, then yes!

          Do you see where I’m coming from? I’m hardly anti-cop. I’m anti-oppression, and our government has gone a long, long way away from being able to be trusted with power. Most cops are good people (hell, I’d say as high as 95% in some areas), the problem with ‘good people’ is that they will often do terrible things (or not stop them) because they are told to and don’t stand up for what is right if risk is involved. Look at history all over the world. Security of rights can *never* be surrendered for safety.

          One thing we do agree on, is that the people at the top cause most of the problems. Chicago is the perfect example (here in LV we have a good one too) where repeat offenders who commit most of the crimes are given a slap on the wrist instead of a short drop from the gallows.

        • Oh, and lest I forget, Katrina is a *TERRIBLE* example of the police not being part of the problem and standing up for the Constitution. I do not need you or anyone else to apologize on my behalf to anyone.

          I live in the real world, sir. Come join me some time. We have great beaches and beautiful women.

        • Kroglikepie, most of your response was a straw man. The conversation was whether they should have access to surplus military equipment. You drew the line at rifle plates. I responded to that. I’m not quite sure how “it’s possible to defeat them” is a superior argument against my “it might make them a little more protected than they are now” point.

          Anyway, my point is that the gear is inanimate–it has no control over how it’s used. You know, the same argument about how guns don’t kill people, people kill… anyway, if you have a problem with how police conduct themselves then your problem is with people, not gear. Your argument against the gear sure sounds like you don’t place much value on the bodies inside the uniforms.

          But yeah, you’re right… police do get paid to do the job. And at the abysmal rate they get paid, I’d say people like you are expecting WAAAAAAY too much selflessness from them. I guarantee you that if I had to work in those conditions and put up with the crap they deal with every day from both inside and outside the department, there’s no way I’d be putting my life at risk for ANYBODY except my fellow officers. You’d better believe it would be “us vs them”. That stupid notion of community policing comes from a world that’s been gone for 50 years. You want friendly police officers? You need to start with teaching entire cultures a little concept called respect for authority. To expect police to change first is like being at a western standoff and telling the good guy that if he’ll just toss his gun on the ground the bad guy will suddenly become a good guy and do the same.

        • “respect for authority”

          Because when people react negatively towards police malfeasance, that’s just lack of respect. 🙂

        • So cops get to be “Citizen +” because of the job they volunteered for. Got it.

          For the last time, my problem is with the militarization of the police and the wanton way in which we hand out .mil and .gov toys to PDs who have absolutely no conceivable need for them and can’t afford them.

          Cops are people like everyone else. You get the good, the bad, and the ugly. They work for us though, not the other way around.

  25. I think that MRAPs should be available to every American at deeply discounted military surplus prices. ?

    Good for pullin’ stumps, plowin’snow, and driving through Chicago.

  26. I like how the 1033 program and Byrne grants both expanded massively under Obama but somehow he is construed as anti-cop. Why would he be anti-cop? They are the ones doing his dirty work. 🙂

  27. About a year ago I saw an M113 on a hauler and an MRAP on it’s wheels, both freshly painted in Pasco white and green going toward the Government center. I guess I can see certain circumstances (hostage rescue maybe) where the M113 might be handy but I can’t get my head around any LE scenario that the MRAP has a role in. I’d give the local LEO’s any defensive equipment they want, NVE, and all the ammo the need to train with. Crap specifically built to counter an insurgency not so much.

  28. I’m fine with the cops having anything a civilian can buy. Cops are supposed to be civilians. The problem comes when we move cops across the civilian/ military line. The job of the police is very different from the job of the military (or is supposed to be anyway). The job of the military is to kill people and break things. I hope to God I don’t live to see the day when that becomes the job of the police in this country.

  29. Is till find it absolutely fascinating when gun owners defend Trump. I can’t help but think that Trump supporters don’t understand how freedom actually works.

  30. What’s the problem with the police having military equipment? You people need to chill out on this, you sound like liberal wackos. The issue is not having access to the military stuff, it’s how it’s used.

    If the need arises, I absolutely do want my local law enforcement equipped with real tanks, armed drones, helicopter gunships, rocket launchers, and belt fed machine guns!

  31. Seriously, if you are going to be “The TRUTH” about something at least be TRUTHFUL and listen to the whole thing not just the part you want, then comment in a way to upset the minions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *