The cops justify needing that because you have an ar15.
this post was submitted on 26 Aug 2023
486 points (84.0% liked)
Political Memes
5429 readers
2270 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Yeah, it's really not that complicated!
If everyone gets rid of their ar-15's, do the cops sell this vehicle?
They might not sell it, but they probably wouldn't get funding for buying another one.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(6 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
I can ask more than one question. They're both valid.
I can ask both. I can even ask if maybe one of the reasons cops have that is that people are more heavily armed?
Boy, if I was a school shooter, I'd hate to see this thing parked up outside at a safe distance with the engine off.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Exactly. One of the big outcries to upgrade police weaponry started with the North Hollywood shootout.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Because people have ar15s
No one commonly owns AR15s in Australia. None of our cops have this stupid shit.
What's more is thanks to the gun ban there, the black market cost for a glock handgun not counting ammunition is around $12,000 cash versus what, 10x less in the US?
Now my conservative acquaintances who adore supply-side economics should understand that increasing cost inhibits demand.
load more comments
(1 replies)
It's probably because nutters are running around with ar15s!
They are but the bigger problem is, the cops driving the war machine are part of the nutters.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Own an ATGM for home defense, since that's what the founding fathers intended. Police APC column rolls toward my house. "What the devil?" As I grab my powdered wig and Stugna-P. Blow a golf ball sized hole through the first car, it's dead on the spot. Draw my mortar on the second car, miss it entirely because it's smoothbore and nails the neighbors dog. I have to resort to the MT-12 mounted at the top of the stairs loaded with APFSDS, "Tally ho lads" the tungsten dart shreds two cars in the blast, the sound and extra shrapnel set off car alarms. Fix FPV drone and charge the last terrified rapscallion. He Bleeds out waiting on the more police to arrive since multiple fragmentation wounds are impossible to stitch up. Just as the founding fathers intended.
Zero civilians need AR15s unless they're planning a mass shooting.
Or a revolution ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
(agreed we're not there but that's another use of civilians owning warfare weapons)
That's exactly the argument that conservatives always give for gun ownership. But like, how would they possibly overrun the largest military in the world with their personal arsenals?
Maybe they could take a city but I can't see it being a long lasting victory.
If anything, the US's engagements in Vietnam and, more recently, the Middle East have shown that eradicating an insurgent force is incredibly difficult, to the point of being almost impossible. On top of that, there are weapons used during the GWOT that wouldn't (shouldn't(?)) Be used against American citizens, unless their goal is to be rulers of the ashes. On top of that, there are plenty of American Servicemembers that would straight up refuse to attack American citizens, and would potentially aid the insurgency with things like vehicles and ammo.
Add on top of that the extensive gun culture and sheer number of veterans in the general US population and I'd say they have a fighting chance.
I say this all as a former military intelligence analyst myself.
load more comments
(5 replies)
load more comments
(11 replies)
load more comments
(10 replies)
load more comments
(4 replies)
They probably need it because you have an AR15.
But why do you need an AR-15? That wouldn't do much against a tank. Why not get artillery instead? 🤔
You've got a good head on your shoulders friend.
load more comments
(2 replies)
I think it was in California in the 90s that some guys tried to rob a bank, but they had full body armour and helmets, and were armed with assault rifles and high capacity magazines. The cops were useless against them as all they had were squad cars, pistols, and a few shotguns. It was a huge wake up call for police forces across America and it didn't take long for them to start acquiring better equipment.
If you don't like the militarization of your police, then you need to do something about the militarization of your general populace.
I mean… “¿Porque no los dos?” Neither should exist in civilian hands. A MRAP has no use for civilian police nor does an AR15 have any use for a civilian.
Maybe because of people like you, armed to the teeth for no rational reason whatsoever?
load more comments
(8 replies)
This highlights a weird side effect of weapons rights. The right to own weapons by the citizens to protect themselves from government tyranny, combined with the need for law enforcement to arm themselves adequately against heavily armed citizens breaking the law, becomes an arms race between the citizens and their country, with whoever is better funded being the winner.
Telling the citizens to drop their weapons doesn't mean the cops drop theirs. Telling the cops to stop arming themselves against citizens just sends them to their death during confrontations.
I suggest we all go play video games instead
load more comments
(5 replies)
As others have said, both questions are completely valid. However- at this point- no one should expect a reasonable answer to either from anyone that is asked.
Neither is needed. Fuck.
why not both?
Wasn't these basically donated because the military had too many? I understand them completely. The SWAT units needs armored trucks, even in Sweden they have Sandcats. The options were these extremely cheap former military MRAPs that are bulletproof, or buy armored civilian vehicles which costs multiple hundreds of thousands.
I'd bark up the tree of military spending rather than the police accepting hand-me-downs.
If I remember correctly pretty much every small town in the US has a ridiculous SWAT team like this. I think this kind of equipment is rare in Sweden.
load more comments
(1 replies)
Probably one is because of the other, dontcha think?
Police militarization is not because of citizens having arms. Rather, overproduction by the military trickles down into surplus sales to domestic police, and they eagerly gobble it up for various reasons such as "they like power", "they like to feel like big men", etc. They aren't outgunned against anything besides a civilian uprising.
My best guess is that this is just one of many things they were able to grt acceas to using federal subsidy programs. The very famous Obama-era 1033, but also The Department of Homeland Security's "Urban Areas Security Initiative".
We all know that they can be used by SWAT, ATF, etc. When it may be needed - but they also get used to intimidate protestors and violate their rights.
The wildest thing the police in Denmark have is a slightly modified old mercedes minibus or something with bullet proof windows and tough tyres etc
Apart from that one vehicle they have some mini busses and such for transporting. But they arent really special, or built specifically for the police or whatever.
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›