Skip to comments.SL Tribune editorial: LEOs need ability to kill large #s of people
Posted on 01/25/2013 2:05:02 PM PST by kiryandil
click here to read article
Why do law enforcement officers need to kill large numbers of people, pray tell?
Didn't post the link because it looks like SL Tribune is on the Free Republic no-fly list.
There is certainly precedent for this. For example, Police Battalion 101 needed to be able to keep order while they marched people off to the forests where they could kill them. That is exactly what they were tasked to do and that is what they did. For more details of this critical need, Google the term “Einsatzgruppe”. See what the left really has in mind.
"Assault weapons that can fire numerous times in seconds are designed for only one thing: killing large numbers of people. The military and law enforcement officers need that ability"
Sounds like this @sshole has wet dreams about poleeeces gunning down crowd of Tea Party types or other enemies of Obunga.
Walk down Madison Avenue in New York. Many posh stores have, on view, or behind a two-way mirror, an armed guard. Walk into most any pawnshop, jewelry story, currency exchange, gold store in the country, and there will be an armed guard nearby. Why? As currency, jewelry, gold are precious. Who complains about the presence of these armed guards? And is this wealth more precious than our children?
Apparently it is: for the Left adduces arguments against armed presence in the school but not in the wristwatch stores. Q. How many accidental shootings occurred last year in jewelry stores, or on any premises with armed security guards? Why not then, for the love of God, have an armed presence in the schools?
SL Tribune editorial: LEOs need ability to kill large #s of people..
So why did libs complain about Kent State? Lots o’ dead in Ohio.
We know what the constitution says.
There is call for police to be slightly more heavily armed than civilians. For whereas you and me have the right to defend ourselves and others, police have the powers—and they are legitimate ones—to chase people down in order to effect arrest and to keep the peace, which nay involve crowd control. Also, they may lay siege to fortified positions in order to execute lawful warrants or resolve hostage situations, beyond what would be justified for private individuals.
Aside from that, and remember they must all be lawful, no, they don’t need anything more than Average Joe.
is Geobbels the editor??
By the way, since when were semi-automatic rifles designed only to kill large numbers of people, any more than, for instance, handguns. They give you a wider range, is all, not that it matters when your quarry is penned, like in gun-free zones. Do they realize they’re no different than hunting rifles? If so they don’t care.
Anyway, weapons designed only for killing large numbers of people are called bombs. Mass murderers are actually being sporting by killing one at a time instead of all at once that way.
The 1938 parallels are all too accurate and the bloodlust of the statists is reaching the boiling point.
Yep, this is a great example, along with DiFi's gun-grabbing bill exempting LEOs and government officials from the ban.
We need a two-pronged attack here. The first on the logical absurdity of the proposed legislation and how it is just the first step down the road to outright bans of just about all guns. And the second is to show the mendacity of this bunch.
Just one article of many.
I’m SURE you’ve already heard this...ping.
No you jackass, they are designed for FIGHTING OTHER ARMED OPPONENTS!
Which is why they are so effing devastating when used against people who are UNARMED!
Anyforce dealing directly with the people should require the people they are dealing with have the means to supply themselves with weapons of simular power and abilities.
Alexander Hamilton's retort from Federalist #29:
...if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.
Police State bump for later..........
The ruling libtards are afraid. They want to disarm us because they are going to do things that are grossly unconstitutional and they don’t want people to rightly revolt and remove them from office for most likely treason and more heinous unconstitutional legislation.
All these years people have bought handguns that their local police used, because “if it was good enough for them, it’d be good enough for me”. That way if you ever had to use it, you could always say I have the same model our local police carry and use, I’m not using anything stronger than the LEOs believe to be enough for them.
Now all of a sudden LAW ABIDING people can’t be trusted with the same guns they’ve had for years?!?!
It’s about disarmament. Totally.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.