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."
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.
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.
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
No the shame is that most Americans don't believe that social consequences are their problem. This is why your society looks more and more like a toilet every day.
Your society has a murder rate 5 or more times that of major first world countries. And you think YOU are the ones who are free?
And yet I've never heard of a howitzer being used in commission of a crime.
I also note that in the UK, ownership of a tank is perfectly legal. It has to be demilitarized (the gun barrel(s) filled with concrete, that sort of thing), but it can be managed, if you're rich enough. Saw an article the other day about some guy who uses his Scimitar light tank to drive to town to get groceries....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
And you fail to see the need for weapons/armored vehicles. Dumbass!
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.
You're like a drunk with a hangover who thinks the solution to it is just to drink more.
It is legal to own a howitzer or a bazooka in the US. The rockets and shells I believe are regulated.
You can also own a fighter plane and or a bomber.
You can own a tank in the UK as well.
If you ever go to an airshow odds are you will see people flying fighters and bombers that they own.
It sounds really dumb but frankly I just do not see people using any of these to commit crimes.
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
It's the same logic one could apply to any First Amendment issue, or coding for that matter: "Just because you can, doesn't mean you should."
Who put this thing together? Me, that's who.
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.
The rockets and shells I believe are regulated.... It sounds really dumb but frankly I just do not see people using any of these to commit crimes.
Gee, I wonder if one of those has anything to do with the other.
Hey, while we're on this logical path, make all guns legal, for anyone, anytime, anywhere.
Just regulate the bullets.
I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
We have many things wrong in this country. Corruption, excessive government spending, a military machine that gets involved in things we should not, and many relationships with countries we should not support. Most of our crime is gang related violence. They don't follow laws and have guns. Law abiding gun owners have never been a problem.
Not exactly. These notable examples of white men running amok are the outliers. They are a nice juicy thing for the media to latch onto. Most gun crime is not. So the mindless liberals get a really skewed idea of what's really going on and what really needs to be solved.
But yes, NRA members are not the problem.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
Already been tried. Supremes ruled it unconstitutional.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
By the same token, US citizens should be able to buy nukes!
Now there *is* the small possibility of owners going postal now and again! Perhaps even rendering the place inhabitable. But thats a small price to pay for a free market, right? In the long run, the market always sorts it out (perhaps has a different species take over... maybe cockroaches.... viva la market!).
Well... If you live on Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), you really will want (and need) a armored car.
Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
GOVERNMENTS have comitted many crimes using them.
That just proves that government is the problem and that people need to be able to fight against governments.
The very reason why us in the United States have a second amendment is not to protect ourselves from criminals, but to protect ourselves from a tyranny; a government out of control, and in that effort we must have a reasonable chance of success, which we won't have by using revolvers and shotguns.
If police need weapons like automatic weapons, grenade launchers, drones and armored cars, to be used against citizens, then the citizens definately need those types of weapons to be able to use them against government.
Today, here in the U.S. we have homeland security that is better armed than most armies around the world. This is a domestic force and is a threat on the freedoms of Americans. This force is very similar to the Gestapo used by Hitler, and HSA has become more and more agressive on attacking our rights.
American's quite simply will not tolerate infringements.
You also neglect to mention those areas with the highest rates already tend to have the strictest gun laws, yet still the highest incidences of gun violence.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
The vehicle would be registered and taxed based on its weight and displacement, so any damage to the road should be covered under the cost of the road fund license (commonly called vehicle tax or road tax), which is set by the DVLA.
If the vehicle is driven with its road track blocks installed (rubber blocks that go on the tracks) then in theory it should have a lower pavement weight than a similarly heavy lorry, as the vehicles weight has a greater footprint, and thus lowers the stress on the road.
Rich people don't commit crime, rob someone of $15 nonviolent only threatening violence without a weapon do 5 - 10 years, rob a few people of 15 million never see the inside of a cell.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
"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 say the same crap that's been used to justify weapons stockpiles for decades. How much government tyranny is it going to take for you guys to start actually defending all our/your freedoms? With all the crap the NSA, TSA, FBI, and all the other three letter agencies do, you'd think we'd have had a civil war long ago. You guys keep on saying you need your guns to protect from government tyranny and yet it increases day by day.
"American's quite simply will not tolerate infringements." What a joke! Apparently even heavily armed Americans will tolerate infringements as long as they get to buy guns and spout right wing bullshit all over the airwaves and internet.
When is this revolt of your's going to happen?
Yeah, that's what I thought.
I'm not responsible for other people's fear.
Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
And the only people with raised eyebrows are the ones that contract private transportation, much of it with "enhanced safety" and specially trained drivers.
It's like some dickwad whining about people having guns yet has armed guards on the payroll.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Or East LA. Or the wrong side of Boston, Houston, Miami, or most other big cities. You don't have to leave the USA to find third world countries.
Well, yeah.
Frankly I don't see the problem with merely owning any of the aforementioned items. The problem comes when you point them at other animals, or the things that other animals care about. What's so inherently wrong with using a weapon on your own property without harming anyone?
I'd like to see laws constructed such that the moment you intend to cause harm with a weapon, regardless of how big that weapon is, you have committed a misdemeanor. Actually cause harm, and you get upgraded to a felony, with various names and punishments proportional to the actual harm done and the potential harm the weapon could have caused.
Unfortunately, laws are not structured that way. Rather, they're built around knee-jerk panicked responses to the latest horror. I blame the legislators, and the scared people who pressure them to make bad decisions.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
Sure, but the real way to resist subjugation by the state is to free your mind. The armored car and big gun thing is just fantasy. Look at how well it worked out for this guy.
What modern authoritarian states are vulnerable to are public opinion. They can absorb large amounts of paramilitary opposition and as long as they retain the upper hand the regime is stable -- in fact the military opposition is useful to it. But they are critically dependent upon the willing cooperation of the populace and vulnerable to even modest levels of coordinated civil disobedience.
Which is not to say guns don't have their uses in revolution. You just can't build a revolutionary movement around them. They're useful, but neither necessary nor sufficient.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's also why our poorest state is wealthier than the UK on a per capita basis.
We look more and more like a toilet because we are abandoning our founding values, which are the values that created the middle class, and were once shared by every nation that is today recognized as "developed", as those values are, in fact, the only way you can create a developed economy.
Remove minorities from the statistics and you will find that the US violent crime rate is in line with the least violent nations in Europe.
Guns have nothing to do with it, or the Swiss would be awash in blood. Rather, what we need to do is focus on economic advancement of the underclasses, which are disproportionately populated by minorities (for whatever reason). And you aren't going to get there with welfare. That has been tried, and all it does is breed generation after generation of permanent cripples (see the state of Indian tribes on and off the reservations--those on reservation receive generous welfare payments, and are poor, while those off the reservation have to make their own way, and are largely successful and independent).
If you want to have a social safety net, then fine, put in a basic income, which has been shown not to have a negative impact on people's willingness to work. But when you have a system that punishes people with less welfare money, or a total cut when you go to get a job, and punishes those who work even a little with greatly increased amounts of reporting and paperwork, well, you get what we have today.
Drive by's don't count as mass shootings?
Guns aren't only used to kill. They are used to stop people from killing you. And it would seem that they are very effective at that, as the drugged out psycho showed when he picked a target that was disarmed by statute, populated by people least likely to carry guns in any event.
Ban pools while you are at it. Only slightly behind. But somehow less scary. Sort of like how we are more afraid of sharks than we are of dogs, even though lots more people get killed by dogs each year. Oh yeah, ban dogs too!
Second Amendment Explained
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free
state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed."
There are three parts to this sentence. The first part means, in current
layman's terms:
We want to be a free, independent country, and to do that, we need to be
able to defend ourselves from other countries. This requires us to
have an army.
The second part means, in current layman's terms:
We accept that we need an army for protection from other countries, but
how do we keep this army from just saying, "ok, WE are in charge
now, and you people will do what WE say." The answer: the PEOPLE
will have a right to keep and bear arms, to have weapons and be able
to use them if necessary against not only criminals, but against the
government if the government oversteps its bounds.
The third part means, again in current layman's terms:
Your individual right to weapons may not be limited in any way. This
includes any procedure or law that has a limiting impact on the
ability of a free person to acquire arms. Waiting periods, background
checks, limiting amounts or types of items purchased, etc., are ALL
unconstitutional.
Don't Panic.
I'm not responsible for other people's fear.
Much more importantly, my rights are not subject to revocation due to other peoples' fear.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
Rich people don't commit crime, rob someone of $15 nonviolent only threatening violence without a weapon do 5 - 10 years, rob a few people of 15 million never see the inside of a cell.
If the threat of violence is credible, most laws treat it essentially just like an assault that actually employs the violence. Threatening to hurt somebody until they give you their property is a violent crime - because it's predicated on your willingness and threat to do violence in order to steal something. With or without a weapon has nothing to do with it.
And can you point to an example of someone who's actually robbed $15 million and not faced criminal prosecution? Or are you confusing robbery with legal activity that you wish were not legal? There are people in the world who think you make obscenely too much money, and they're convinced that the only reason they're not personally better off is because other people are better off than they are, which makes you one of the people who is robbing them of their prosperity. Should you go to jail? That person's irrational complaint is just as good as your deliberately vague one, right?
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Great society we have if we have to take people's liberties away in order to get them to live with one another.
States taking the most federal money include Mississippi, New Mexico, Alabama and Kentucky.
What liberal measures are they pursuing?
The problem is anyone can own a gun, responsible and fully sane or otherwise.
Of course that's not at all true. Every state in the country makes provisions for keeping crazy and criminal people from buying guns. It doesn't help when one of their family members decides to commit the criminal act of facilitating their acquisition of one anyway. Several states are actively knocking on doors and taking guns away from people who have been convicted of certain crimes, or who have fallen under a protective order or deemed not sane enough to own weapons. You're just (knowingly, I'm sure) wrong on the facts.
Americans need to accept that some people just shouldn't have access to such deadly weapons.
You mean, like we already have? Sure, why not. People who don't realize that just need to check their state laws so they can see that's already the case.
The constitution even says so - you can bare arms as part of a well organized militia, i.e. with appropriate training and checks on who is allowed in.
You're deliberately misrepresenting the second amendment. Even if you can't parse the actual words right in front of you, you can go off and ready countless documents by the people who wrote and ratified that amendment, showing that you've got it exactly, precisely backwards. The founders, having spent years living under the militaristic thumb of the British government in the colonies, were very apprehensive about the continued existence of a standing army (especially a federal one). Still, they knew that there had to be an organized military capacity at one or more organizational levels (at least state, county, etc). Their wording in the second amendment, if you were to use slightly more modern, casual parlance, would go like this: "Because we know there will always have to be a permanent military structure in place to defend the country, we don't want that military to have a monopoly on the ownership of arms, as we experienced under British rule. This amendment officially prohibits the government from preventing the people from keeping and bearing their own arms."
The second amendment was written specifically to preserve your personal right, should you choose to exercise it, to keep and bear arms exactly because there was inevitably going to be a well organized militia operating nearby, and the founders - having seen what they'd seen - considered it absolutely vital that the organized military didn't become the only entity in the country that was armed.
Your fantasy, in which it's exactly the opposite, flies in the face of everything the founders had to say on the subject, and is completely contrary to the debate, writings, and ratification votes that surrounded the amendment's place in the constitution. It's just like the first amendment in that capacity. The first amendment doesn't spell out who's allowed to speak, or indicate that you have to be qualified to own a printing press. It's there to prevent government over-reach, just like the second amendment. And the fourth, etc.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
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
That something that has changed is the 24 hour news cycle. These issues happened all through history, they are just getting major nationwide attention now because there is an effort underway to take away all guns.
Roof was not legally allowed to own a gun, so no amount of gun control would have kept that gun away from him. I have not seen any news yet on where the gun came from, there is something about his father possibly buying it for him, but that has been denied.
It is unfortunate that there is so much gun violence, but when the wide majority of gun violence is done with illegal guns, gun control will not fix the problem.
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
The wide majority of gun crime in the US is committed with guns that the person using them has no right to posses.
Roof used a gun to shoot 9 black people in SC recently. He was under felony charges for drug crimes and was not legally able to own a gun. How will more gun control laws stop him from getting a gun?
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
According to the most recent updates, he did in fact purchase the gun himself, and therefore passed the NICS check (even though he was legally barred).
But then NICS is in a really shitty state in general, and it has been known for a long time by those who cared to research it. Databases are very incomplete and out-of-date, some categories are not entered there outright by some states etc.
Those foreign agents really did a great job with Kennedy and Reagan.
Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
The vehicle would be registered and taxed based on its weight and displacement
Dunno what it's like in other places but here in the UK (which the OP mentioned) vehicles over a certain age (think it's 40 years now, it used to be 25, then for a long time the date was frozen) are counted as "historic vehicles" and don't pay any road tax at all. Afaict most ex-military vehicles run by enthusiasts fall into that category.
note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register