Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-05-2013, 08:38 AM
 
19,023 posts, read 25,966,028 times
Reputation: 7365

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Taratova View Post
When the government controls what you eat, what you can buy, what you can do, I think you will still love Obama..
That's more like who can buy and who can sell ain't and with out the mark you can't.

On that day i will be happy to die with out the mark.

The only question is how many with that mark, can I take with me?

Me: I ain't about to worry over it.

it just is upsetting to discover Obama and his folly spending have lead to drones and TSA, DHLS, waste, but what else is this gov good for if not waste?

Don't worry 3rd world foreign countries. ZERO will still invest in your assured poverty. That's what the USA is about, Insuring world poverty and puppet dictators like Obama wants to be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-05-2013, 08:46 AM
Status: "119 N/A" (set 24 days ago)
 
12,962 posts, read 13,676,205 times
Reputation: 9693
The NRA supports my right to own one but its a problem when a law enforcement agency want's one ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2013, 08:46 AM
 
8,059 posts, read 3,945,174 times
Reputation: 5356
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
DHS is not acquiring 2700 tanks. Its a purely military order, for use by the military.

Whats next DHS acquiring an aircraft carrier?

Check my post at #69 in this thread, DHS has them and is using them.

A quick google image search shows they have them in San Diego, Los Angeles, Detroit, New York, Tacoma, and Albuquerque (that i have found so far). It's not a far stretch to assume all 26 SAC commands have them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2013, 08:47 AM
 
Location: S.E. US
13,163 posts, read 1,695,729 times
Reputation: 5132
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
DHS is not acquiring 2700 tanks. Its a purely military order, for use by the military.

Whats next DHS acquiring an aircraft carrier?
I thought the military budget was being cut, and due to the sequester DHS has to let criminals loose, and to extend airport wait times for travelers to as much as 5 hours...and whatever other steps they have to take because there's "no money". Ms. Napolitano was just conjecturing this morning about the airports that she thought would be affected. Is that to offset the cost of the tanks and the vast stockpiles of ammo they've been buying up?

How is there money for 2700 tanks when the military is getting the brunt of the sequester cuts??
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2013, 08:49 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
Check my post at #69 in this thread, DHS has them and is using them.

A quick google image search shows they have them in San Diego, Los Angeles, Detroit, New York, Tacoma, and Albuquerque (that i have found so far). It's not a far stretch to assume all 26 SAC commands have them.
I saw one here in Texas traveling on a truck route and assumed it was military making their way to Ft. Hood. It was desert brown and HUGE.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2013, 09:04 AM
 
Location: NW Nevada
18,158 posts, read 15,628,539 times
Reputation: 17149
Quote:
Originally Posted by thriftylefty View Post
They might be handy on the Mexican border. The Mexican police and army are getting out gunned by the Drug Cartels.
Now, that's a place where an MRAP would come in handy. Since our guys can't shoot back at varmints down there they may as well be inside something that cuts their odds of getting hit by a good factor. Interesting how the US always has this issue with having to play by the rules when the enemy doesn't. Popping shots and volleys from the Mexican side without worrying about return fire. Must be nice.

So, there is a good example for LE needing rolling armor, but border security on the Mexico line is closer to being a war zone than a crime scene. Though I do not begrudge the best protection possible for LEOs, particularly in areas where there are more bullets in the air than bugs, militarization of LE agencies still spooks me.

The idea of rank and file cops rolling around in APCs as a matter of course, seems extreme. DHS is becoming a pretty spooky agency these days. With little general mention of them in the media, it has become somewhat enigmatic. Then, what we DO hear about DHS involves the procuring all new, hi tech, arms and equipment and enough ammo to keep a LOT of weapons running for a LONG time. Nobody stocks up that much ammo without a use in mind, and training purposes doesn't quite explain it. There needs to be a distinction between training and equipment twixt military and LE, and there is, but, the line is rapidly blurring.

I suppose that different folks have different takes on this. Fine, this is still America. My take is I don't care for the idea of LE being trained and eqipped as if their primary mission is combat.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2013, 09:15 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,845,391 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ultor View Post
Check my post at #69 in this thread, DHS has them and is using them.

A quick google image search shows they have them in San Diego, Los Angeles, Detroit, New York, Tacoma, and Albuquerque (that i have found so far). It's not a far stretch to assume all 26 SAC commands have them.
The Gateway pundit posting in the OP which is based on a posting from 2012 is referencing a military order for use by the military, primarily the Marines.

The fact that DHS may or may not have a MRAP, does not change the accuracy of the original posting.

There has been no evidence that the DHS has or is acquiring 2700 MRAPs. Again the original story is based on a military contract for MRAPs for use by the military, not DHS.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2013, 09:17 AM
 
Location: Alameda, CA
7,605 posts, read 4,845,391 times
Reputation: 1438
Quote:
Originally Posted by southward bound View Post
I thought the military budget was being cut, and due to the sequester DHS has to let criminals loose, and to extend airport wait times for travelers to as much as 5 hours...and whatever other steps they have to take because there's "no money". Ms. Napolitano was just conjecturing this morning about the airports that she thought would be affected. Is that to offset the cost of the tanks and the vast stockpiles of ammo they've been buying up?

How is there money for 2700 tanks when the military is getting the brunt of the sequester cuts??
According to the contract information these "2700 tanks" were upgraded with funds allocated pre-Sept 2012.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2013, 09:21 AM
 
Location: Great State of Texas
86,052 posts, read 84,481,831 times
Reputation: 27720
Quote:
Originally Posted by WilliamSmyth View Post
According to the contract information these "2700 tanks" were upgraded with funds allocated pre-Sept 2012.
Sequestration has been hanging over our heads since 2011.
It's not like this is new and just happened December 2012.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-05-2013, 09:21 AM
 
9,659 posts, read 10,227,349 times
Reputation: 3225
Quote:
Originally Posted by NVplumber View Post
So, there is a good example for LE needing rolling armor, but border security on the Mexico line is closer to being a war zone than a crime scene. Though I do not begrudge the best protection possible for LEOs, particularly in areas where there are more bullets in the air than bugs, militarization of LE agencies still spooks me.
My take is I don't care for the idea of LE being trained and eqipped as if their primary mission is combat.
Why aren't the troops at the border then?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:25 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top