Slashdot Mirror
Privately Owned Armored Trucks Raise Eyebrows After Dallas Attack
HughPickens.com writes: Manny Fernandez writes in the NY Times that the scores of military and police-style vans, trucks and cars offered for sale on Craigslist and eBay have raised concerns for some law enforcement officials, particularly after the Dallas attack on a police headquarters. Officials say the vehicles appear to be legal for the most part, so there is little they can do. Jeff Funicello, for example, is selling his black 1975 GMC armored truck on Craigslist. The body is armored, and the windows are bulletproof. It has sliding portholes to point rifles from and a sprinkler system inside. Long ago, it transported money, and it was once the target of a shootout in the 1980s. Of course, people have been driving reinforced cars long before the Dallas attack on a police headquarters. But the celebrities and executives who install bulletproof windows and other types of armor on their vehicles often do not want it noticed. Celebrity clients generally demand that the exteriors of their luxury armored vehicles look normal so they blend in. However those who buy and sell armored vans want people to look. And the popularity of apocalyptic movies and television shows has put a new twist and added a macabre cachet to such vehicles "This is America," says Funicello. "I should be able to have a howitzer or a bazooka if I want one. If I wanted to buy a fire truck, I could."
First armored post!
Why would you need an armoured car, or encryption.
Trust us, we're the Government. /spooky, captcha was 'identify'
""I should be able to have a howitzer or a bazooka if I want one"
Idiots that say that sort of thing and actually mean it.
who needs enemies when we have swat teams to "protect us" from shoplifters by destroying our homes. http://www.wnd.com/2015/06/swa...
so can you blame people for wanting to protect themselves?
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
on an equal footing with their police masters!
A pretty typical response. Focus on some trivial or unimportant aspect of a bad event, rather than face the fact that little can be done. Does anyone really believe that "doing something" about armored cars is going to prevent future attacks? The attacks will just take a different form. It is like saying "hammers raise eyebrows after person is attacked with a hammer" The least important and and least valuable aspect of that description is the hammer.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
If they outlaw Humvees, only criminals will have Humvees. And the police, but I repeat myself...
And someone was properly motivated, you could still reinforce a regular van. Obviously, the police had weapons powerful enough to stop this guy, so it doesn't seem to have helped him much.
No one should own a bulldozer because it is almost a tank. Or cutting and welding equipment because you could armor a vehicle.
Passionately Indifferent
Americans should just suck it up and absorb the ordinance thrown their way. Heaven forbid anyone drive in a vehicle that is resistant to bullets, the Collective(TM) does not approve.
And no more first aid kits in the hands of the public, a rapist once used one to remove a splinter and continue his reign of terror.
Surprise surprise. No armoring yourself allowed. They want to be able to kill you easily.
There could be many legitimate reasons for WANTING an "Armored" vehicle, such as the aforementioned celebrities who are at risk of being attacked. "Armor" in and of itself does nobody else harm and is merely defensive (as opposed to offensive) in nature.
I know ownership of weapons in America is a highly contentious topic so I fully expect to get modded down aggressively for this post. I want to try out the argument anyway. Please humour me.
Let us imagine two different countries: Macroland and Microland. The governments of the two countries are mostly similar, with two notable exceptions.
The government of Macroland punishes resistance to its rule heavily. It jails approximately 0.7% of its population. Its enforcement troops kill about 60 of its own people each month.
The government of Microland is dramatically less aggressive. It jails only 0.1% of its population, but more importantly, it virtually never kills its own citizens no matter what they did or how strongly they resist the government's rule. It took Microland about a quarter of a century to kill as many people as Macroland did in just one month.
Which country has the most oppressed people? Microland or Macroland?
I think most reasonable people would say that the citizens of the country that kills them the most often are the most heavily oppressed. After all, what's the basic power that lies behind abusive government oppression? What's the basic mechanism governments use to remove people's freedoms? It's violence. The country that dishes out the most against its own people would seem to be the most oppressive.
You have, of course, already figured out that the statistics given above are real. Macroland is the USA. Microland is (just for comparison) the United Kingdom.
Americans have the US Constitution and it is a mighty document. The Constitution has always been a vital part of protecting the freedoms of ordinary Americans from overreach by government. Yet the Constitution is flawed in one terribly dramatic way. By allowing and even encouraging a heavily armed society, it fails to strike any blows for freedom - as police have always had and always will have better access to top grade weaponry and armour. The chances of ordinary US citizens successfully mounting an armed uprising against the government is zero. And yet it simultaneously gives those same police a cast iron excuse for arming themselves to the teeth, as they are expected to enforce the law against an exceptionally dangerous population.
The result is that whilst Americans and British people have very little differences in their levels of freedom, they have enormous differences in their chances of being executed by their own governments ..... or by random mental patients.
I am British and I would like to see the UK adopt a US-style constitution. But not if it included a copy of the second amendment. Real data from today's world seems to suggest it makes no real difference to freedom but does make the world a vastly more dangerous place.
How cool would it be to drive a mid-sized firetruck to work every day, without having to actually be a firefighter and run into burning buildings and such?
No, you shouldn't
The intent of the United States of America was to protect and value the freedom of the individual over and above the good of society.
Nowadays it seems people here in the "home of the brave" are fearful and lazy. So they would rather society protect them instead of having to be responsible for themselves.
If rich people do it, it's no problem, only if creti and pleti do it, then the Po-Lice goes nuts.
If you are tanned by birth, they can't even shoot you in the back that way.
... resist subjugation by the State. The People should not have guns, armored trucks, a free and open Internet, or any other means that could conceivably be used to protect them from the State. The State knows what is best for everyone, and people should be glad that we tell them what to do and control how they do it down to the minutia.
and a bomb lifter.
He collects weird stuff, I don't see a legal problem with it. His wife sure sees a problem with it, but that is another thing all together.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
As a supervillain I for one am appalled by this. Armored trucks have always been a private citizens right. whats next? we're going to call into question the dazzling array of flamethrowers and toxic gas rocket launchers theyre equipped with? insufferable. I remember the city council (may they rest in peace) raised a fit after I constructed an army of armored tanks programmed to autonomously roam the streets in search for violators of my holy curfew as their new godking. But, and stay with me here, are we really going to let a bunch of bureaucrats dictate our freedoms? our rights? This country was founded on the principle of liberty and by god (plauthar the vengeful, as has been decreed) I as a private citizen should be allowed to build and command my unstoppable aramda of highly lethal airships to blanket the cities and darken the skies in my mission to root out the uncleansed. Its my american dream, nay, my soverign duty to continue construction of the fifth of my 32 story tall octoped cybernetic death harbingers to scour both mountain and sea for the jade sepulchre of the crest of immortality. What would our founding fathers (not the ones that I've reanimated and chained to the 4 beacons of unholy light in what was once syberia) think of this today.
Good people go to bed earlier.
"I should be able to have a howitzer or a bazooka if I want one"
And I should be able to not have such things next door to me.
I'll continue to happily live at least one continent away from this kind of attitude, thanks.
You know, about that small incident in a south carolina church with a "law abiding" gun owner. Or at least he was law abiding until he shot 9 people dead.
I mean, it's not as if over 120 million people were killed by their own governments in the last century, is it? And all of those people lived in countries where the 'government' had made it ILLEGAL for the general public to own guns, at least as far as possible.
Did this 'attack' even happen? Seems like another JEWISH false flag to me...
Why would a white 'racist' kill the nicest, most law-abiding black people he could find? Wouldn't he want to kill the scummy low life criminal types?
But Greenland is 4X worse than the USA.
Check out how your country rates.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Crime and violence result from societies where there is a large inequality gap. Look at countries with the lowest crime - typically systems where there is a strong social welfare system, and government policy that re-enforces social justice. Trying to treat the symptoms and tools of the criminal is a policy doomed to fail.
Obviously the US system is an example of where economic policies have failed pretty completely. As an outsider, the level of violence from US 'law enforcement' is utterly shocking. I wouldn't feel safe in america. They have more shootings and violent crime per-capita in a few days, that we have in many decades. The majority isn't even reported. Certainly not a country where I'd bring up my children.
Sounds like a grab on the part of law enforcement for more power and control. It's the boogie-man of the day.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
so armor is the problem, not crazy people with a shitload of privately-owned automatic defense rifles and stuff ?
I don't get it. Armor should be illegal, but guns are totally fine.
Clearly you cannot hurt anyone with an armored vehicule (unless you drive over them, but that doesn't require the armor), but you can easily with the gun. Why would you want to ban a clearly defensive technology, while allowing offensive things?
A gun is an expensive toy.
Police will be provided with FUNDS FOR guns (and ammo... and training... and maintenance... and special equipment needed... and better guns...) by the government.
Average citizen will not be provided with a gun or any of the tools or procedures needed to operate one. NOR with the money to purchase any of it.
And that's not going into that average citizen from "when the 2nd amendment was drafted" was fucked if the local economy failed to provide gunpowder or lead.
Nor could the average citizen waltz into a store, leave an IOU payable by the government, and waltz out with all the guns and ammo needed - on account of authority as an elected law enforcement officer.
And even without ANY other funds but the paycheck - police is paid to walk around with guns.
Average citizens have to get and maintain a job - THEN should they be able to afford it, they can buy a gun and walk around with it. Without being paid for that.
Also, police will be provided with additional pairs of hands to handle more guns and even with an army should the need arise.
Average citizen would have to pay for help from his/her own pocket. And would not be allowed to just call up the US army or any other army.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
How hard is it to use the Shift key to capitalize the beginning of a sentence? Jeez.
Consider the government and police anti-social behavior, we absolutely should have the right to own such vehicles, and the weapons to go with them.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Is this on Slashdot? 0.o
It's a shame that you are such a small little individual to need it.
so the rest of you can go to hell. Just don't stop paying for the infrastructure that I am sponging off. that would be tyranny.
If you still cannot identify the people that they are talking about then maybe a look in the mirror will work better.
everyone (that is white) is a law abiding gun nut right up to the point where their bullets enter those schoolchildren.
as we are too busy burying the results of your rare mass killings. Of course, I'm sure you will get some cut and paste rom the NRa as to why the victims are to blame and not the sad little individuals that need their strapons
we are actually trying to solve the problems with diseases, while ammosexuals like you are using the deaths that you cause as an excuss to buy more manhood enhancements.
Security theater in this country is most excellent.
We can't let commoners own armored vehicles !! Why, they might want to shoot up the place !! :|
Let's replace a few words and note the resulting silliness. . . . .
We can't let commoners own private aircraft !! Why, they might fly them into buildings !!
Or, with a bow to MadLibs,:
We can't let ________________ own ________________ !!, Why they might __________________!!
To any who will use the tried and true " What possible need do you have for one ? " argument, I reference
the same reasoning the ten man local Sheriff's Department needs an MRAP. It isn't because you NEED one,
it's because, for some reason, you WANT one. ( and just because you can )
As I read this article, I could instantly see how this looks just silly to people who populate the tech sector. It is easy to make snap judgements and laugh at the crazy, stupid, unwashed rubes living elsewhere. A wiser person would ask, "why do people in Texas feel the need to own, armor and heavy weapons? Is there something going on?
In a nut shell, people in Texas are scared. How would you feel if the Federal government were conducting war games in your state, for the express purpose of invading your ass if you get upidity? Ok, lets put it this way, remember all that awful rhetoric that rules the forums 10 years ago about how Bush was a NAZI and wanted to impose his views on you? How would you feel if he ACTUALLY then sent the U.S. army in to act out a scenario where California, Washington, and Oregon rebelled because they wanted more federal control over money, more liberal tax policies, and open borders? You see news reports about this, some blogs. You think it is crazy. Then, one day, you wake up to the awful sound of attack helicopters conducting a drill over your neighborhood. Yes, OMFG you would be crapping your pants and creating a shit-storm in the blogosphere....and you would be perfectly correct to do so.
The difference is that for all the rhetoric and sensationalizing, Bush never did such a thing. I doubt he even dreamed of it. On the other hand, Obama is conducting operation Jade Helm this summer. He HAS used the IRS to attack police enemies and change the election. He HAS threatened to shut down Texas airspace if the state passed an anti groping bill limiting the TSA from feeling up children. Admit it, under such an environment, no matter how rational you deem yourself, you would be nervous too.
The problem lies in the exaggeration of political views. In what should be a healthy debate over tax policy and building codes has turned into ball-sport where people think anyone who is not wearing your color of shirt deserves death. It is absurd. It is counter productive. It is destroying our civilization. Worse, it is very common here on good ol' slashdot. Ask yourself, have you said something like "I hate fox news?" or I hate Bush and republicans?" Hate is a very strong word. In fact, many enlightened liberals feel it is a crime. Why do you have such strong, murderous feelings over, someone who views the tax code differently than you. Isn't that a little extreme? You say you hate Fox news, and feel it is cool to say so? Why? Because you don't agree with all the viewpoints, and it challenges the narrative that you never do? Do you think the new sources you enjoy are really any less biased? Really?
I point this out because such thought is so common place on slashdot I find it heart breaking. When I first joined this forum, near 2000 it was a free and open forum where you were modded up by the strength of your argument and how well you defended it. Now, I have a troll moniker for simply not agreeing with destructive comments on the forums. If we are to survive as a society, we need to be intellectually honest. We need to face honest criticisms of our cherished beliefs with joy instead of hatred. In the crucible of conversation, we can arrive at better solutions. Living in an echo chamber or rage will lead to....
"Liberalism is a very noble idea, currently controlled by some very bad people. Be sure you do not get the two confused.
See subject & answer the question vs. your utter fuckup here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... so keep "puffing that pot" fool!
* :)
Gotta love it - seeing you give me guff, knowing you CRIPPLE your OWN thought processes with pot is priceless, since it makes it (& I've just GOTTA say it, you're making me do it) "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" to utterly crush you by making you "eat your words", spiced with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, + your foot in your mouth RAMMING THEM DOWN, rinsing down the puke you spewed on /. that I smacked you down with easily!
APK
P.S.=> Gotta LOVE pot smoking dolts - they're stupid enough to do what "stoned_ritual" did, & smash themselves into the ground everytime vs. myself, lol... apk
See subject & answer it vs. you doing it here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... so keep "puffing that pot" fool!
* :)
Gotta love it - seeing you give me guff, knowing you CRIPPLE your OWN thought processes with pot is priceless, since it makes it (& I've just GOTTA say it, you're making me do it) "too, Too, TOO EASY - just '2ez'" to utterly crush you by making you "eat your words", spiced with the bitter taste of SELF-defeat, + your foot in your mouth RAMMING THEM DOWN, rinsing down the puke you spewed on /. that I smacked you down with easily!
APK
P.S.=> Gotta LOVE pot smoking dolts - they're stupid enough to do what "stoned_ritual" did, & smash themselves into the ground everytime vs. myself, lol... apk
Something funny Sans Serif.
It's Friday, and I can't be asked to fill in the blanks for you.
In these uncertain times, you can't be too careful. We should all be driving armored vehicles, like the Marauder. Top Gear did a wonderful review of the vehicle, showing how practical the Marauder is for normal city driving.
Review part 1
Review part 2
The first time we saw this kind of nonsense involved making it a crime to wear bullet proof clothing. The reasoning is that it was hard to stop armed robbery types who wore bullet proof clothing. Now they want to make bullet resistant vehicles illegal. Does it not dawn on them that many celebrities as well as others may need such equipment to be reasonably safe? Many music and film stars need special protections as do some economic figures. So are we to have a nation in which only certain people can own a bullet proof vehicle? If one person can own such a thing then every person has the same right. Cops sometimes wear bullet proof vests when off duty as they are aware that revenge shootings are a distinct possibility.
LOL!
So funny... The answer is: "Of course not!"
They used the same BS argument up here in Canada to dismantle the gun registry recently that goes something like this:
Criminals don't follow the law, so we might as well get rid of it.
Pretty sure that is the definition of "criminal" is someone that "doesn't follow a law", which you only have should "laws" exist. That's like saying, why have a law about murder, as those pesky criminals are just gonna go murder anyway. Ridiculous. The whole point of said laws is A) to limit access to firearms, and B) to enable police by providing them with additional tools to do their jobs: Enforcing laws, catching and putting criminals away.
> "This is America," says Funicello. "I should be able to have a howitzer or a bazooka if I want one.
No. The 2nd amendment is very clearly worded about a milita, not military. Militia as in everyday people called up serve with personal arms. Crewed weapon systems are not militia, those belongs in the military definition. The National Guard is not a militia.
Furthermore, armour is not included in the 2nd Amendment, only arms are. That is why the feds are able to ban civilians from obtaining Level 4 and 5 rated ballistic vests, like the Point Blank Interceptor (which are proof againt rifle-fired hardmetal bullets, not just handy Thompsons and Berettas). Conceivably the feds could also ban civvies from owning vehicles with stronger armour than a certain x thickness and the SCOTUS couldn't raise any objection.
I know, the real numbers of gun deaths would easily show you exactly why the grownups are finally starting to realize that tolerating gun nuts is not a healthy thing to do.
I'm a Kiwi who has travel to the USA a few times and has a few US friends. I have learnt that they have a fundamentally different view to guns than people from every other country I have meet. From the outside looking in the USA is hard to believe. Talking with people from the USA it is clear they are passionate about their rights to bear arms and I have accepted they are different from the rest of the world and they think the price they pay for that freedom is acceptable. However the quote from the article ""I should be able to have a howitzer or a bazooka if I want one." has me wondering. From US TV shows it would appear that individuals are not permitted to own nuclear bombs. First correct me if I am wrong, the right to bear arms does not extend to nuclear weapons? If not then where is the limit? Are you permitted a howitzer or bazooka? What limits do people consider ok?
For once, you're correct! What a surprise: Look before you leap next time before giving others crap - Otherwise you'll blast yourself up the ass again as you have now (& by your OWN massive screwups).
APK
P.S.=> Keep puffing that pot - its done WONDERS for you! Too bad "eating your words" isn't satisfying your "munchies" pothead!
Suggestion - Change your diet - eating your words != GOOD nutrition (lol)...apk
Because the official forces of 'the government' aren't necessarily the greatest threat to civil society. Modern militaries and police forces drawn from the general populace make poor implements for terrorizing the populations they are drawn from outside of the existing legal/social framework. Death squads and their ilk are generally not formed military units, are not drawn from the populations they terrorize, and they're a hell of a lot less effective against even a moderately armed populace.
Given examples like Cambodia, Chile, and Guatemala, can you really say that the average British citizen will remain safer and more free than an average American because the populace has been all-but-completely disarmed?
That's not a bet I'd take over the next 10 years.
Read PP's supposition.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
This is not a position of advocacy for one side of the debate in particular, merely an observation for your reflection.
This debate concerning a citizen's right to weaponry is as polarizing as those of political and religious topics. People on both sides of the argument (with entrenched belief sets) are often unable to process new evidence of a contradictory sort.
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
You've got to be kidding. The nuclear club is for countries. If you're not in it, the ones that are do whatever they can to keep you out. Citizens need not even apply.
Besides, you'd be frickin crazy to have a nuclear device. Terrorists want them and would do whatever it would take to take it from you. They're tough to even maintain if you have one, as well as dangerous. Not to mention a bitch to even make it. If you detonate one, where would you do it? They're just way to dangerous. Now if you had your own planet or something, go for it.
The US is too restrictive in some ways. We can have machine guns, cannons, etc however it's very expensive. You also have to give the government a license to come and inspect your properties whenever they want. No warrant is needed. I understand this goes all the way down to the local Sheriff.
You cannot own stuff that has an explosive ordnance, such as a high explosive round. Of course that's the ultimate - shoot something and it blows up. You have to put explosives in whatever it is your shooting to do that. That's another license.
On the other hand, I've shot a machine gun. A Thompson sub machine gun. It's way cool. I had a 15 shot clip in it, which when I went from 3 shot bursts to full auto, it emptied it very quickly. About 1.5 seconds I believe. I fully understand why they're so tough on them after shooting it. You feel way powerful with it. If you're a bit crazy, it'd be easy to wipe out a bunch of people quickly without even a second thought. It just seemed too easy. So I'm glad they restrict it. However I don't appreciate them not allowing any new machine guns to be made. They stopped that in the 1980s.
If you look at the Second amendment, we should be able to have whatever the military has. That was the point. Not that I ever expect we'd be able to do that.
People don't even know what is a right and what isn't. For example the 2nd amendment is a right. Abortion isn't a right, yet some people claim it is. I ask - ok, show me. They can't because it's not in there.