View Single Post
Old July 7, 2014, 03:48 PM   #143
Madcap_Magician
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 13, 2009
Location: MN
Posts: 668
Quote:
Originally Posted by motorhead09022
I will always argue that if they can have such equipment, so can I. Police have M16's? Fine, but where's mine, without an NFA required?
Law enforcement acquisition of NFA-regulated items is still regulated by the NFA. I am not an NFA expert, and most NFA items are banned by state law where I live, but if I had to make a guess, I would say the acquisition of NFA items by law enforcement agencies is a bit analogous to using a trust to acquire NFA items, which you can do as Joe Sixpack.

I will also admit that I may be wrong on this next point, but I have heard that most or all of the M16s surplused to law enforcement agencies have had the auto sears removed, in which case there is no practical difference between LE equipment and the rifles in your safe.

Again, my complaint is that A. Many of the people complaining about law enforcement getting military surplus equipment are making their complaints solely based on cosmetic complaints rather than complaints about substance, and B. That's the same argument that the Brady Campaign, MAIG, and MDA are all making against the same guns.

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnbwt
Forget 'need' for a moment since it is distracting; for what purpose would a police force want militaristic equipment, weapons, and tactics? What would they likely tend toward given these elements?
Again you are talking about cosmetic features. Do you want to be able to own a tank (you can!), body armor (you can!) or an AR-15 (you can!)? Given that you can do these things, why do you care if the police have a Bearcat and surplused M16s?

Quote:
Originally Posted by barnbwt
Poster Me: I know my weapons will not be used offensively against human beings. I know my weapons were paid for with my own money. I know my personal choices in guns have zero impact on the community at large. I know I reject the concept that anyone should be able to go about in peaceful society with militaristic regalia and weaponry without scorn, though their actions be legally permitted. And that goes double for police, who, besides being 'ordinary civilians' like the rest of us, are not paying for their kit, either.
Are you saying that laws should be determined based on what each of us know about ourselves? Maybe we could have a blanket waiver. It could go something like "I am hereby not bound by any legal restrictions on what I can possess, based on the well established legal principle that, well, I know I won't do anything bad with them."

There are a lot of good reasons why restrictions on private ownership of item X should be loosened or eliminated, but "Barnbwt says he knows in his heart he won't do anything bad with it" is not one of them.

As to your last point, many police agencies do in fact require officers to purchase their own firearms, and some agencies require them to purchase much more than that.

What possible reason would there be for a community to pay to have a police department and not also pay for the equipment necessary to do that job?

Maybe those physicists at CERN should have to buy their own particle accelerators as a condition of employment.

Last edited by Madcap_Magician; July 7, 2014 at 04:04 PM.
Madcap_Magician is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03400 seconds with 8 queries