The proof that these assholes don’t believe their “good guy with a gun” lie is they don’t allow guns at the NRA events.

I wish some nut(s) would attack the NRA event, shooting a few dozen gun proponent politicians that normally hide behind their armed security and bullet proof podiums. I’m sure their tune would change significantly if some of their ilk were silenced permanently. No one deserves it more than Abbot.

Edit: BTW…more unarmed school children have been murdered in school this year than police officers in the line of duty. For all their bravado, their whining about how dangerous it is to be a cop, the necessity for more militarized equipment for their safety, it’s actually more dangerous to be a 10 year old student. I guess those kids should all get vests, rifles, pepper spray, armored vehicles and buildings, etc. ..that’s the solution.

Also, guns are the leading cause of death for children under 19 …have been since 2020.

Fucking worthless cowards and thugs, every single one. They deserve one more bullet each…delivered at high speed.

The people themselves are failing.

Maybe we need an Ozymandias? (Watchmen)

I’m sure you heard about this, right….cops robbing armored cars in Southern California….(quasi)legally.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/21/san-bernardino-county-sheriffs-deputies-accused-of-illegally-seizing-1-million-in-pot-proceeds-from-armored-veh
icles/

Since the mechanization of war, armed citizens stand zero chance against a better trained, armed, and armored military. You can barely buy a rifle that might penetrate a hummer, and they are the least armored vehicles.

You forget, armed coups happen all the time without the support of the populace. See, when the military is overwhelming, no one balks at paying exorbitant taxes, at least not after a few public executions on the spot. Willing public support is definitely not required to retain power. If it were, we wouldn't have a word for tyranny or draconianism.

I'm not sure any other weapon can destroy up to 40 armored vehicles (and everything between them) in one flyby.

I think this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sz0T2hY9N4 shows a better view of how an entire area is enveloped by the shrapnel.

@bareboards2

I've been operational in a war-zone. Shot at twice, and in a Mexican standoff once, but I never fired my own weapon.

Fact is, other developed nations manage just fine (for the most part) when it comes to things like this. It doesn't help that the US has never and probably will never allow any member of the forces to be prosecuted internationally for war crimes.

I know someone who was in Italy many years ago when a US plane decided to buzz underneath the wires of a gondola (the mountain kind, not the Venice kind, obviously). The tail of the plane caught on the wire and 12 people died, including a few children. There was no criminal prosecution for the pilot, crew, or commanding officers. I mean, just look at all the Wikileaks files on war crimes committed by US soldiers, barely any of them received any kind of judicial review (if any at all did, I never heard of them) including indiscriminate killing of random civilians.

Like it or not, that's a part of the US military culture and they worked hard to make things that way. In Vietnam it was estimated that one in a million shots fired from small arms actually HIT an enemy combatant. They learned it was because fewer than one in ten soldiers even TRIED to hit.

On top of that, the pay is so terrible, it's mostly those desperate to lift themselves and their family out of abject poverty that apply for enlisted positions. They are not well-educated and they are certainly not (for the most part) intelligent, hard-working individuals. The US chooses to spend the vast bulk of military spending on technology, rather than people (after all, it's easier to give kickbacks to your political donors that way).

Well, this is the result. A military with no fear of repercussions unless you're one of the poor scapegoats at Abu Ghraib (and if you think they represent even one tenth of the total personnel involved, you're out to lunch) and you're dumb enough to take pictures of yourself, there's pretty much nothing you can do to the 'enemy' that will get you in serious trouble.

Why do you think the Brits insisted on their own zones of Iraq for the second gulf war? In the first one they fought alongside Americans and suffered more casualties from American fire than they did from Iraqi fire. I talked to a Brit armored officer who was in the first gulf war. He went to introduce himself to the colonel of the American unit next to them, the Colonel stared in amazement at the Scorpion light tank and said, "What the hell kind of Bradley is that?" I can guarantee you, every soldier, from Private to the Colonel of my regiment could have identified every armored vehicle on the battlefield.

Oh, you mean the small area between Poland and Lithuania? The one that Russia is pouring troops and weapons, -- including missiles capable of carrying nuclear warheads, into at such a rate that the region is now one of Europe's most militarized places?

Moscow is stationing "thousands of troops, including mechanized and naval infantry brigades, military aircraft, modern long-range air defense units and hundreds of armored vehicles in the territory."

I mean, it's only scaring the piss out of two of our friendly countries in the region. Well, more if you consider that Russia's military buildup in the region allows them direct coverage of Sweden, Germany, and other nations that really don't trust the former USSR.

So, to use your example, I would absolutely expect Russia to get antsy and not sit by idly if we suddenly moved a LARGE portion of our active military forces to the Florida Keys. All of this is more posturing and sword rattling by Putin, a direct throwback to the USSR leaders of old. If he thought he could get away with it without open warfare, he would be rolling tanks into all the old USSR satellite states.

It isn't just this incident alone, either, as Russia has been steadily stepping up calculated shows of force and close encounters with our forces well away from anything close to their territory. Primarily, if you ask me, because the world outcry over the Ukraine situation stifled their little miniature coup attempt from taking over the entire country.

***Edit***

I just wanted to add, I don't want to go to war with Russia. I agree that many of the things that we are doing, such as considering adding former Soviet states to NATO, are antagonizing them. But I feel that in some cases our hands are tied by the fact that Putin, directly or indirectly, is making a lot of those former states think that he is planning on re-absorbing them under the umbrella of a new USSR. If he would keep his nose out of their internal affairs, I am pretty sure we wouldn't be building up in response.

" In the end, nothing the public had to say mattered. The city council approved the acquisition with an 11-4 vote. Here's how they justified the armored vehicle's existence in a town of 42,000.

[Liz] Blanchard said she was voting for the Bearcat because it was the replacement of an older piece of equipment and would only be used for defensive purposes. She said in the wake of the Newtown school shooting and the Boston Marathon bombing attack, “we do need to be defensive.”

Ward 2 Councilor Jennifer Kretovic called the issue “a huge civic discussion” but said the calls from her district in support of the Bearcat were "ten-fold." She said recent murders and armed robberies in the northern part of the city showed that it was needed. "

@lantern53

Having been an officer for a long time, long enough to really have seen the entire process of the "militarization" of the police force from its inception to its current state. I'd really like to know your opinion of it. Can you honestly say you feel its appropriate, even needed or justified? The very rare opportunities I've had in the past to ask police officers this question, i find they are very reluctant to give honest and straight answers. Paraphrasing, they tend to fall back on the, "we'd rather have it and not need it" line of thinking. If you do support it, do you truly feel you or the officer utilizing it have received appropriate training?

I remember driving by our local police station (small town Texas) on the way to school and seeing BOTH the giant armored vehicles parked prominently in front with the bold SWAT on the side. Its always been extremely hard for me to accept them or the fact that we as a town of 30k needed a SWAT team to begin with.

I both agree and disagree.
Cops should try do de-escalate when possible, but also should not allow felonies to continue unabated and/or felons to just walk away from the violent crimes they just committed in front of officers, as they did.

Like you said, if Wesley Snipes had called out the crips and bloods (not to be racist, it's an extreme example) to protect his right to not pay taxes, the cops would almost certainly NOT have 'backed off'...I would like equal treatment across the board. They didn't back down in Waco, or Boston, or Pakistan, or Afghanistan, or Iraq....why start now to 'save lives', especially the lives of admitted traitors to the USA? (if you proclaim your readiness and willingness to fight an armed battle against the federal government that you publicly denounce, and ask others to join your armed insurgency, you ARE a traitor to the USA, period, in my opinion...look up "the whiskey rebellion" for historical context.)
EDIT: I think they should have called the national guard to restore order, since the local officers were so outmatched. A couple of heavy armored vehicles and a few hundred machine guns and/or a few attack helicopters buzzing about would have made them think twice about advancing, unlike the smattering of officers with pistols that backed away and allowed the theft (and killing) of confiscated cattle.

Some human lives need to end. :-) In this situation it's not about putting one person away, it's about upholding the rule of law, which is being publicly broken not only by one jackhole, but by all the armed 'terrorists' that have proclaimed 'war' on the federal government with him, and therefore on the USA.

It does 'blow a hole' in that 'tyrannical state' argument, but that argument was so full of holes to begin with it didn't need another to prove it wrong. He doesn't even believe in the federal 'state', so how can it be tyrannical? :-)

I'm also certain this isn't over, the first time he or his wife go to town without their private army they'll likely be going to the pokey. I also assume their accounts have been frozen (I hope so anyway) and the title to their family land has a federal lien on it. I also hope all federal welfare support for his family has dried up, along with his mail service and any other federal program(s) they take advantage of. He has no right to federal services, he's a tax cheat and felon.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'russia, street, trafffic, armored, vehicle, drive, lamp post, bmd' to 'russia, street, trafffic, armored, vehicle, drive, lamp post, bmd, bonk' - edited by calvados

Where the hell do people live that has armored vehicles driving down the . . . oh, right: Russia.

This vehicle is in desperate need of some proper ABS brakes.
It also needs a serious redesign, it looks like a school bus they just bolted some armor on, i mean, there is a reason why other armored vehicles of that size use 6 or 8 wheels.
And i think this video is pretty good evidence of this.

According to Occupy Oakland, they will fight back:
This morning at 5am over 500 police in riot gear from cities all over central California brutally attacked the Occupy Oakland encampment at 14th & Broadway. The police attacked the peaceful protest with flash grenades, tear gas, and rubber bullets after moving in with armored vehicles. Apparently the media was not allowed in to document this repression, and the police established barricades as far apart as 11th and 17th. Over 70 people were arrested and the camp gear was destroyed and/or stolen by the riot police.

Those trucks weren't up armored. They're just standard Ford Rangers. markd was right about the timing though. Good tactics do say to wait until point man/vehicle has passed before you detonate a mine/bomb/whatever. This separates the forces and increases your odds. I

God, I'm so fucking glad we're pulling out of that shit hole. We had no business there to begin with, and it's obvious they aren't ready to act like a civilized people. >> ^therealmarkd:

>> ^StukaFox:
Why were they shooting after the bomb went off?

The blue truck was the first up-armored vehicle in a convoy. The bomb went off in an effort to destroy the white up-armored truck caught in the blast.
The shooting was the follow-on ambush of the convoy by whoever set the car bomb and/or the crew of the convoy shooting at someone they thought was responsible for the bomb... Pretty standard tactics.

>> ^StukaFox:

Why were they shooting after the bomb went off?



The blue truck was the first up-armored vehicle in a convoy. The bomb went off in an effort to destroy the white up-armored truck caught in the blast.

The shooting was the follow-on ambush of the convoy by whoever set the car bomb and/or the crew of the convoy shooting at someone they thought was responsible for the bomb... Pretty standard tactics.