Every rifle now a "weapons system"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why? Civilian is the correct designator in most cases.

ci·vil·ian
2 a : one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force


http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/civilian
I disagree with that use of the term for a number of reasons, none of which is pertinent to this thread. I'm fairly certain I won't sway anyone's opinion who takes offense to my referring to civilian police officers as civilians; so I will avoid driving the thread off topic.
 
Fireside44 said:
(nonsense)...real operators

Yeah, okay. I don't play a cool guy on the big screen, but Uncle Sam did give me a paid vacation this past year. But I'm sure you have some actual proof instead of a sound bite. :rolleyes:

John
 
I dont like the militarization of police forces. They are civilian police officers. They are part of us. As soon as this is not recognized it goes to an us (LEOs) vs them (civilians) mentality.

This is all wrong. That being said...I understand that many officers find themselves in patrol conditions where it nears combat at times and an us vs them mentality naturally forms.
 
I think the term has been stuck with us since the 1985 Iran-Contra proceedings. Major Oliver North who testified before congress used the term repeatedly.
 
Hmm. We always called rifles "rifles." When people were talking about a "weapons system" it usually involved some sort of vehicle or wiz-bang gadgetry. You'd hear guys talk about the TOWII as a "weapon system." The wingers would refer to harriers and cobras as "weapons platforms." Sometimes, you'd hear the tankers refer to the tank as a "weapons platform," but most of the time, they just said "tank." At least as I heard it. And, the tracks, instead of calling them a "weapons platform" they called them "floating coffins." I think I heard "grunt bus" once. And this was DESPITE the fact that you could plop a mk19 or two on one.

The funny thing was, if you were hearing the word "weapons system" or something like that, it was usually during a class. Out in the field or in training, you never heard that stuff. A rifle's a rifle, a tank's a tank, a jet's a fast-mover, a helo's a helo/cobra/apache, a tow was a tow a dragon was a dragon, and I assume today a javelin's a javelin. But I bet you anything the classes for any of them started out with a purpose statement that included "familiarization in the use and deployment of the ____________ weapons system."

Maybe things have changed, but if someone in my unit had referred to their 16 as a "weapons system," it would have generated some epic eye-rolls.
 
Oh, you must be referring to folks like Larry Vickers (1st Special Forces Operational Detachment – Delta), Paul Howe (Delta), Ken Hackathorn (Special Forces Small Arms Instructor), and Clint Smith (just some guy, LOL). They talk about weapons platforms and systems quite frequently.
Point being?
 
Yeah, okay. I don't play a cool guy on the big screen, but Uncle Sam did give me a paid vacation this past year. But I'm sure you have some actual proof instead of a sound bite.

You didn't study humor on your paid vacation I bet. It was meant as a joke. A real operator would've understood.....:neener:
 
Don't we just live in such an awesome country, at such a great time in the history of civilization, that we can make a big deal out of something like this.
 
one not on active duty in the armed services or not on a police or firefighting force

That's true in many other nations. It's not *supposed* to be true in the US. But there's no doubt many police officers do use the phrase, as do many gang-bangers, to refer to those outside their warfare. It's not a good thing. Certainly no gun-owner should encourage this kind of "wolf/sheep/sheepdog" ideology. I prefer that dusty, half-forgotten old word "citizen." Now rejected by the left as naive and attacked by some on the right as being the product of an illegitimate Constitutional amendment.
 
Last edited:
Well, fireside, I'd say I swallowed the hook. :) Unfortunately, we have a few members/posers who say things like that, and are completely serious.

John
 
I really hate this terminology. It's no more descriptive than "gun" most of the time and is simply used to sound intelligent.

I enjoy responding to these people in the following manner:

So, when I load the cartridge systems into my magazine system, I'll then insert it into the weapon system and acquire my target through the sighting system?

I will allow the use of this terminology to refer to something with much more complex weapons like tank guns and modern artillery. I also don't care if someone is referring to say, an M4/M203 or similar combination of weapons that exists as one piece.

Weapons platform I take to mean family, like AK, AR, etc...


Also cosmoline, I agree completely, and I just got through serving 4 years with Marine Recon. The sheep/sheepdog crap is nothing more than "I'm better than you" garbage. I'm not superior to anybody because I can use a gun.
 
"I dont like the militarization of police forces."

"What do you mean?"

Officers used to not go around dressed in combat fatigues and combat boots. Now they do. Many see themselves as "enforcers" and not "protectors." Yes, there are good police officers. There are also bad ones. I've encountered both. I had a motorcycle cop pull me over in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, back in 1996. I was driving the speed limit (cruise control) and I overtook him. That officer was in the right lane, I was in the left, returning home to Mississippi. The man was doing about 60MPH. I was doing 70, which was the speed limit. I'm no fool and I never overtake officers faster than the limit, but I'll be darned if I'm going to slow down unless they are working an accident or have somebody else pulled over.

I overtake him and continue on my way. Suddenly, blue lights in my rear-view mirror. He pulls me over and I ask, quite honestly, what the problem was. The officer angrily tells me that I disrespected him by passing him!!! I told him I was not speeding and meant no disrespect but was driving through town, but he got madder. So, I apologized and used a bunch of yes sirs and no sirs. Had I kept to my rights, he might have arrested me, or worse. But he had the gall to pull me over for doing nothing wrong.

In my own town, I dealt with the "new guys" our new chief brought, and they were nothing but bullies with badges. Some of them didn't even wear uniform shirts any more, choosing to wear police t-shirts with printed badges. But they wore their black BDU pants with bloused combat boots. They're mostly gone because of misconduct and the chief was unceremoniously fired (his name was Kinslow).

On the flip side, a friend of mine is a state trooper and he is a giant of a man. But he doesn't buy into the combat attire and is a great person. The former police chief of our town was a really decent fellow who didn't lord his power.
 
"I dont like the militarization of police forces."

"What do you mean?"

Officers used to not go around dressed in combat fatigues and combat boots. Now they do. Many see themselves as "enforcers" and not "protectors." Yes, there are good police officers. There are also bad ones. I've encountered both. I had a motorcycle cop pull me over in Tuscaloosa, Alabama, back in 1996. I was driving the speed limit (cruise control) and I overtook him. That officer was in the right lane, I was in the left, returning home to Mississippi. The man was doing about 60MPH. I was doing 70, which was the speed limit. I'm no fool and I never overtake officers faster than the limit, but I'll be darned if I'm going to slow down unless they are working an accident or have somebody else pulled over.

I overtake him and continue on my way. Suddenly, blue lights in my rear-view mirror. He pulls me over and I ask, quite honestly, what the problem was. The officer angrily tells me that I disrespected him by passing him!!! I told him I was not speeding and meant no disrespect but was driving through town, but he got madder. So, I apologized and used a bunch of yes sirs and no sirs. Had I kept to my rights, he might have arrested me, or worse. But he had the gall to pull me over for doing nothing wrong.

In my own town, I dealt with the "new guys" our new chief brought, and they were nothing but bullies with badges. Some of them didn't even wear uniform shirts any more, choosing to wear police t-shirts with printed badges. But they wore their black BDU pants with bloused combat boots. They're mostly gone because of misconduct and the chief was unceremoniously fired (his name was Kinslow).

On the flip side, a friend of mine is a state trooper and he is a giant of a man. But he doesn't buy into the combat attire and is a great person. The former police chief of our town was a really decent fellow who didn't lord his power.

I'm not seeing anything here that supports your statement that the police are being militarized.
 
I don't think police departments are being "militarized" necessarily. Namely because PDs aren't getting weapons and gear that are actually military grade. But I digress.

It is quiet a bit of inertia. The military is leaning away from M16s in all variants in favor of the M4. So PDs end up getting some new SHTF rifles. More money is being dumped into PDs from DHS since 9/11. It started with high risk areas like NYC and DC to filter down into smaller communities to upgrade old equipment. Is it a good move? meh. Time will tell. Is it bad? Only if the populace is restricted from having similar, then its a police state. Either way the militarization of police is kinda off topic.
 
Police department with APCs aren't proof enough?

I do think this discussion is on topic. Civilians often want the same gear as police. Apparently the police want military gear.

So civilians get all AR15 weapon system happy and police get fatigues and APCs.

Tactical trickle down.
 
Last edited:
Police department with APCs aren't proof enough?

I do think this discussion is on topic. Civilians often want the same gear as police. Apparently the police want military gear.

So civilians get all AR15 weapon system happy and police get fatigues and APCs.

Tactical trickle down.

I haven't seen any APCs myself. I am aware there are some out there.

Does your local PD have an APC?
 
Between the city and county there are several armored vehicles including at least one APC. Then again, this is TX, we have police river boats with mounted machine guns and they recently shot up a truck from a helicopter. Tough on crime.



Now back to the use of the term weapon system!

Jargon is a term often misused. It is really like a sub-language for a specific task/field. The military has it's own jargon as the veterans here know. But even a soup kitchen would have it's own jargon, foreign to those outside of it.

By adopting jargon, such as "weapon system", people can be that much closer to that sub-group that uses the jargon as their own language.

Even when I was in the military, I didn't use any more jargon than was necessary. It can serve a purpose, but often it just becomes a less articulate lazy way out and a way to keep outsiders out and solidify the bonds of the sub-group. In an us vs them mindset, the "other" is demonized, often dehumanized and the bonds of us are solidified through mutual experience and justification of action.

Good times!
 
I am rather surprised that no one has mentioned the M24 Sniper Weapon System...if so, I missed it.

http://www.snipercentral.com/m24.htm

http://www.snipercentral.com/images/m24army4.jpg

As far as the term or phrase "weapon system," I spent 20 years in the USAF and as long as I can remember, the C-130 and all its variants have been called a weapon system and an aerial delivery platform. Not just buzz words as many have been asserted here, but common terms/phrases that have been in use for a while.

I do agree that such terms often get thrown around recklessly and out of proper context...and agree that a .270 Win hunting rifle or some similar item doesn't necessarily qualify as a weapon system.
 
It makes a certain kind of sense, in that weapons such as the M110 Semi-Auto Sniper System are bought by the gov't as a packagethat includes a bipod, silencer, and optic, not only of the rifle itself. The SR25 rifle is a weapon, the M110, which includes its bundled gear, is a weapons system, or that's how I see it.
 
"I don't think police departments are being "militarized" necessarily. Namely because PDs aren't getting weapons and gear that are actually military grade."

Having actual military arms vs being militarized are two different things. If they think they have combat weapons, dress in combat fatigues with bloused boots, wear military hair cuts, and refer to everyone as "civilians," how is that NOT militarization?

More to the point, too much weight is now on "Enforcement" and too little on "Protecting and Serving." Many good officers are out there. Too many are not.

And "weapons system" is as I mentioned earlier.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top