Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

SilentServiceVet wrote:

MarcSpaz wrote:What I don't get is local, county and state police agencies all over the country have had armored SWAT vehicles that look and are equipped like this for decades. So why is it an issue for DHS? You guys are getting too paranoid.

I have no issue with local law enforcement SWAT units having this type of vehicle. My question is, why does Homeland Security (e.g. the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) need them at all and in that quantity?

Paranoid? Hardly. Paying attention.

You say in one sentence that you are okay with law enforcement having them, then immediately contradict yourself by questioning why DHS (a law enforcement agency) would need them.

SilentServiceVet wrote:

MarcSpaz wrote:What I don't get is local, county and state police agencies all over the country have had armored SWAT vehicles that look and are equipped like this for decades. So why is it an issue for DHS? You guys are getting too paranoid.

I have no issue with local law enforcement SWAT units having this type of vehicle. My question is, why does Homeland Security (e.g. the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT) need them at all and in that quantity?

Paranoid? Hardly. Paying attention.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Precisely. There is a HUGE difference. We are talking in the case of state and local swat teams about military hardware in the hands of LOCAL law enforcement. That is problematical enough for some of us. The criminal justice system in this country is supposed to operate on the assumption that you are innocent until proven guilty; not that you are an enemy combatant to be found and killed. And the police are supposed to observe the due process rights of citizens - not kill 'em all and let God sort it out. This is as opposed to a fairly newly established FEDERAL police force apparently set up for domestic operations in the several soveriegn states. Most crimes are offenses against STATE law. What justification is there for what appears to be the equiping of a military-style police force by a FEDERAL agency? Is the federal government going to take over the enforcement of state law; or do they contemplate enough new federal offenses being established by statute (or executive order, maybe) and committed by citizens to justify all this?

I'm not alleging any conspiracies, here. I just want somebody to explain to me what justifies these actions by the federal government.

@MarcSpaz: This answers your objection in the previous post, too.

It's noteworthy that those things look like they have a high center of mass and are relatively narrow.

gunderwood wrote: They are just tools. However, the government is purchasing these tools on our dime, so they are accountable to us.

It is hard to argue for them to spend this money at this time. I think this money could be used on other items.

I am part of procurement at times. I have seen crap like this before. Someone should follow the money. I am betting that someone is getting this in their district, or to keep the plant open or ......

dorminWS, I'm not sure where to begin. LOL For folks who are not part of DHS, I think its hard to understand. I'll try to do a quick compare.

Yes, in a normal encounter with a citizen, there is an assumption that a person is innocent until proven guilty. However, there is presumption of guilt if law enforcement shows up on a scene and a POI open fires on the LEO's. So, this is what leads to SWAT having these types of vehicles. They don't conduct traffic stops with them. They respond to a know hostile situation or to arrest a know violent criminal who is evading the law.

DHS is the same way. If ICE, CBP, FPS, etc. are responding to a complaint or following leads on an investigation, there is an assumption that the people they are talking to and interacting with are innocent and not hostile. There are some exceptions based on intel from past encounters as with any agency.

Well, if a DHS component is executing a warrant for known terrorists who have access to or are known to have access to grenades and other explosives, high powered rifles and known to have a propensity to want to die and take as many people with them as possible, why wouldn't they want to have as much protection as possible?

Some thing along the same line, CBP is literally at war with drug lords, weapons smugglers, and human traffickers who all have weapons of war available to them to use against our federal law enforcement. Our men and women deserve to have the same or superior weapons and equipment to protect themselves and fight these wars, regardless of if it's an armored vehicle, automatic weapons or strike drones.

A domestic agency buying these things does not mean they are automatically going to be intended to be used against citizens of this country for reasons of tyranny.

MarcSpaz wrote:Some thing along the same line, CBP is literally at war with drug lords, weapons smugglers, and human traffickers who all have weapons of war available to them to use against our federal law enforcement. Our men and women deserve to have the same or superior weapons and equipment to protect themselves and fight these wars, regardless of if it's an armored vehicle, automatic weapons or strike drones.

2,700 of them are necessary for this purpose?

Kreutz wrote:

MarcSpaz wrote:Some thing along the same line, CBP is literally at war with drug lords, weapons smugglers, and human traffickers who all have weapons of war available to them to use against our federal law enforcement. Our men and women deserve to have the same or superior weapons and equipment to protect themselves and fight these wars, regardless of if it's an armored vehicle, automatic weapons or strike drones.

2,700 of them are necessary for this purpose?

Well, they won't let 'em build a fence, so they're just going to line these up end to end.

This thread has gone on long enough without some humor:

Kreutz wrote:

MarcSpaz wrote:Some thing along the same line, CBP is literally at war with drug lords, weapons smugglers, and human traffickers who all have weapons of war available to them to use against our federal law enforcement. Our men and women deserve to have the same or superior weapons and equipment to protect themselves and fight these wars, regardless of if it's an armored vehicle, automatic weapons or strike drones.

2,700 of them are necessary for this purpose?

I don't know what the specifics are about what's required based on the current engagements. I do know that if I was planning on protecting our country, I would have a large amount of everything we need spread all over the country for rapid response time.

Let say we only have 100 of them and most of them are at the southern border states since that is currently the hottest zone. If there is an issue in Illinois that requires an immediate response and the closest APC needed for a response is a 2.5 day drive away or 6 to 8 hours out if they can fly it in, that clearly isn't going to help.

MarcSpaz wrote:A domestic agency buying these things does not mean they are automatically going to be intended to be used against citizens of this country for reasons of tyranny.

I stand corrected about the lack of humor in this thread prior to my meme post.

The statement becomes correct when you understand that citizens become terrorists with no legal rights simply because DHS said so...

gunderwood wrote:This thread has gone on long enough without some humor:

That's awesome! LOL

gunderwood wrote:I stand corrected about the lack of humor in this thread prior to my meme post.

The statement becomes correct when you understand that citizens become terrorists with no legal rights simply because DHS said so...

That very troubling statement... under our current construct, is very true. I wish it wasn't, but it is, and I can't stand behind anything like that. Everyone deserves due process.

Kreutz wrote:

MarcSpaz wrote:Some thing along the same line, CBP is literally at war with drug lords, weapons smugglers, and human traffickers who all have weapons of war available to them to use against our federal law enforcement. Our men and women deserve to have the same or superior weapons and equipment to protect themselves and fight these wars, regardless of if it's an armored vehicle, automatic weapons or strike drones.

2,700 of them are necessary for this purpose?

MarcSpaz, ^^^ is exactly my point. Thank you, Kreutz.

MarcSpaz wrote:Well, if a DHS component is executing a warrant for known terrorists who have access to or are known to have access to grenades and other explosives, high powered rifles and known to have a propensity to want to die and take as many people with them as possible, why wouldn't they want to have as much protection as possible?

Some thing along the same line, CBP is literally at war with drug lords, weapons smugglers, and human traffickers who all have weapons of war available to them to use against our federal law enforcement. Our men and women deserve to have the same or superior weapons and equipment to protect themselves and fight these wars, regardless of if it's an armored vehicle, automatic weapons or strike drones.

A domestic agency buying these things does not mean they are automatically going to be intended to be used against citizens of this country for reasons of tyranny.

Marc, you presented some very grand examples of why DHS would need this vehicle. But these examples are like white rhinos -- rarely seen or heard of, and still does not answer why DHS needs 2,700 of these vehicles. I'm quite familiar with these vehicles and how much they cost, which FWIW aren't even close to being inexpensive either, as each is north of $1M apiece, or so my government customers have told me. So there goes $2.7B. Which leads me to this thought:

Taking into account the large ammo purchases recently by DHS, it calls into question the necessity for these items and in these quantities. Particularly when, in the same breath, Janet Napolitano is releasing thousands of illegal immigrants (criminals) due to budget cuts which hadn't even taken place at the time. Cut back the ammo and armored vehicle purchases and keep the criminals in jail or deport them.

If DHS were fighting an actual war, with a known, uniformed enemy then these vehicles would make more sense. But last I checked DHS hasn't faced terrorists on U.S. soil since Col. Nidal Hassan at Ft. Hood, so what is it they're expecting that justifies this purchase. Even if we added in "drug lords, weapons smugglers, and human traffickers," I can't justify what DHS has done. And I have a large number of friends who work for USSS, FBI, NSA, and DHS. I asked a very senior level friend at DHS:DNDO (an office which might have an argument for a couple of these vehicles) and he couldn't explain the need either.

I used to trust the government on the whole. Under this particular president, I do not. DHS' purchases do not make sense to me on any level.

I thought this administration said, "Weapons of war have no place on our streets".

MarcSpaz wrote:I don't know what the specifics are about what's required based on the current engagements. I do know that if I was planning on protecting our country, I would have a large amount of everything we need spread all over the country for rapid response time.

I don't think anybody at DHS, except perhaps Janet, knows this either. But common sense would dictate that if I had a limited budget for national defense (now under sequestration, btw), I would rather money spent on "protecting our country" went to the MILITARY, not DHS. Why the sudden need for this expense INCONUS? It's not like we're serious about protecting our southern border. Not when we're giving them get out of jail free cards.

dmharvey wrote:I thought this administration said, "Weapons of war have no place on our streets".

Only the nanny state, federal government knows what is best for us, so only they get to have weapons of war. Meanwhile they're hell bent on disarming the people. Perhaps they read Mein Kampf?

@SilentServiceVet

White Rhinos indeed.

Hardly a white rhino. Maybe in the liberal media.

We may not be fighting a domestic war against uniformed combatants, but I assure you this war is happening 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

MarcSpaz wrote:Hardly a white rhino. Maybe in the liberal media.

We may not be fighting a domestic war against uniformed combatants, but I assure you this war is happening 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.

Ironically, the mainstream, liberal media seems to have nothing to say about this DHS purchase. Even more reason to be suspicious.

Given some of your responses, Marc, I'm inclined to think that you may work for DHS. I don't question the grunts who do the work as having hidden agendas, but I wouldn't put it past those at the top. If they or Barack Hussein Obama did have an agenda, they would then expect the grunts to follow orders without question. I have some faith that most would not follow any un-Constitutional order.

I agree there is a "war" happening 24-7 -- and not just my brothers currently gutting it out in the 'Stan, but also those working for DHS. But the need for the vehicle in question still does not jive at those quantities. The self-described "most transparent government" in history should tell the People why these types of purchases are warranted instead of just announcing that they just added more national debt for our children/grandchildren to pay off.

SilentServiceVet wrote:Given some of your responses, Marc, I'm inclined to think that you may work for DHS.

I do. Some day if we meet face to face we can have some lite conversation about what I do. It's eye-opening.

SilentServiceVet wrote:I don't question the grunts who do the work as having hidden agendas, but I wouldn't put it past those at the top. If they or Barack Hussein Obama did have an agenda, they would then expect the grunts to follow orders without question. I have some faith that most would not follow any un-Constitutional order.

Thank you for that comment. I agree and have the same faiths.

SilentServiceVet wrote:I agree there is a "war" happening 24-7 -- and not just my brothers currently gutting it out in the 'Stan, but also those working for DHS. But the need for the vehicle in question still does not jive at those quantities. The self-described "most transparent government" in history should tell the People why these types of purchases are warranted instead of just announcing that they just added more national debt for our children/grandchildren to pay off.

I agree here as well. They are far from transparent. More like spoon-feeding us what they want us to think. Our children and grandchildren should not forcefully be burdened with our load. If anything, we should be willingly burdened with theirs.