Washington Post: Obama administration bans some military-style assault gear from local police departments
The Obama administration announced Monday it will ban federal transfers of certain types of military-style gear to local police departments, as the president seeks to respond to a spate of incidents that has frayed trust in communities across the country.
The banned items are tracked armored vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, ammunition of .50-caliber or higher and some types of camouflage uniforms, according to a report released by a White House working group that made the recommendations. Other equipment, including tactical vehicles, explosives and riot equipment, will be transferred only if local police provide additional certification and assurances that the gear will be used responsibly, according to the report.
Community members "have voiced concerns about what has been described as the 'militarization' of law enforcement due to the types of equipment" that is deployed, the report stated.
WNU Editor: Bayonets? Grenade launchers? Weaponized Aircraft? Yup .... this is overkill.
More News On The White House Restricting Military Gear to Local Police
Obama to Limit Military-Style Equipment for Police Forces -- NYT
Obama puts stricter controls on military-style for police -- AP
Obama will restrict grenade launchers, military equipment from local police -- CNN
Obama Calls for Restricting Military Gear to Local Police -- WSJ
Obama Moves to Halt US Police Militarization -- VOA
Obama bans some military equipment sales to local police -- USA Today
Obama will will no longer give US cops bayonets, weaponized aircraft, and grenade launchers -- Quartz
11 comments:
Not sure if this is "overkill" or not. The greatest threats to America are as follows. 1.)An all out nuclear attack by Russia. 2.)An Islamic terrorist attack likely involving the use of multiple suitcase nuclear weapons or other various types of "dirty bombs" being detonated simultaneously across multiple metropolitan areas. 3.)An invasion of the An invasion of the American land by Russia, China, Russia and China, or some combination of Russia, China, the BRICS, and other nations allied with them.
While scenario 2 is more likely, scenario 1 is the most dangerous. As such, scenario 1 needs to be the top priority for US national defense. I'm not sure how much benefit these weapons would benefit the police in scenario 1 but can see how they'd definitely be beneficial fir scenarios 2 and 3 in assisting the military to respond to and fight off the invasion.
Since most of the police have military experience, they'd be well qualified to utilize these weapons. By limiting the availability of these weapons to law enforcement personnel Mr. Obama may have made it harder to defend America.
Scenarios 2 or 3 are more likely than not to occur at some point within the next three years. As for scenario 1, this is becoming more likely as well at current rates. As for scenario 2, there may be no way to prevent that at this time.
I suspect that intelligence personnel may be well aware of these hence the rush to arm the police in such a manner as we need to be able to respond!! They are likely not telling the American people for two reasons. 1.)They don't wish to induce widespread panic. 2.)The media will quickly and forcefully demonize anyone who tries to point this out moving to destroy them personally and in every way possible. As such, to make such information public at this time would undermine preparations that may well be underway.
By limiting the transfers of this so called "overkill" to local law enforcement agencies Mr. Obama may have further undermined American national security all for partisan political purposes to score points with certain political constituencies. I do hope and pray I'm wrong about all of this.
In summary and very respectfully, I would not quickly dismiss these weapons as "overkill." Remember ISIS has captured territory faster and held it more efficiently than the American and allied military forces ever could. Should they attack America as in scenario 2 local law enforcement will likely need weapons of this type to assist the military in retaking the country and establishing some semblance of order.
B poster, are you 13 years old?
I think this is good... however the key word is *local*. The pipeline to all the numerous Federal government law enforcement agencies is wide open.
B. - You are aware of $18.2T national debt right?
Anonymous,
Actually I'm quite a bit older than 13. Curious that you would ask. Perhaps I did not express my position in the post well enough for you to understand. I will try again. The greatest national security threats to the US are as follows, 1.)an all out nuclear attack by Russia, 2.)an Islamic terrorist attack involving the use some type of nuclear weapons, possibly suitcase nuclear war heads or perhaps other types of "dirty bombs" simultaneously across multiple US metropolitan areas, and 3.)an invasion of the US mainland by Russia, China, Russia and china, or Russia and China along with some combination of their allies.
In order to counter threats 2 and 3, we are likely to need well armed local police forces to assist the military in retaking our territory from Islamic Terrorist groups and/or Russian and Chinese and allied forces. As such, a militarized police force would be important.
Hopefully this won't happen. The point is I may not be so quick to declare these actions as "overkill." In fact, I think some people in the federal government have already figured out what I have. Hence the rush to militarize the police force and give us a fighting chance.
By blocking these weapons the Obama Administration may have severely undercut the ability of our nation to mount an effective defense and for what so he could satisfy a domestic political special interest group!!
Again, I stress again, perhaps it is overkill but I would not be so quick to reach that conclusion.
Are you 12 years old?
Did you not read my post? As stated, I'm quite a bit older than 13. As such, I'd have to be older than 12!! Actually the points I made are quite clear. I'm very serious about America's national defense and what needs to be done. There seems little point in wasting time trying to discuss serious things with the non serious.
Alex,
In the event of a major terrorist attack/invasion, the feds would find themselves overwhelmed very quickly. As such, they should welcome a well armed group of local law enforcement. The locals will also have knowledge of the terrain that feds will not which should make them a formidable force for the enemy to have to deal with.
Matthew,
I'm quite aware of the national debt. In fact, if you are familiar with my posts on this site and elsewhere you will know that I've long advocated for a complete redeployment of American forces around the world to positions along America's borders and off its coasts. This would have the advantage of enhancing our national defense and saving money.
While allowing law enforcement to be equipped in the manner discussed in WNU's post, will cost money. The cost savings resulting from a proper deployment of American military personnel should more than outweigh these costs. Also, a proper deployment of military personnel should, in time, lessen tensions with Russia and China making the threat of a military attack by them less likely.
I agree
Yes, I realize you stated you were older than 13. Hence the reason I asked if you were 12, was to further prove the absurdity of your point. Local police, armed with military gear (but no military training) assist the US military in taking back the US mainland (despite no tactical/strategical training)? Or, did you forget that local police forces font share integrated command and communication abilities with the US military? And if I may ask, are you 11?
Post a Comment