S.C. Sheriff's Department Armored Vehicle with Belt-Fed Machine Gun

[plexreticle]

Good point made about the border. Does anyone here have a problem with deploying a .50 machine gun when the backstop is Mexico? I know I don't.

So your saying it's ok to shoot people in Mexico accidentally or otherwise?

 

[Neckshot5seven]

Im going to contact Dillion for a 20mm cannon for our departments' APC

 

[ny32182]

A .50cal machine gun wouldn't have done squat to stop 9/11, and it would never be fired on a school full of kids either.

Shooting down a crop duster with bio-toxin is the only thing posed so far that is even within the realm of plausible imagination, but just barely... by the time it was discovered that it was a toxin coming from the plane, the plane would be long gone. If that situation developed, it wouldn't be the job of civi police on the ground any more than it was their job to shoot down the plane headed for the Capitol building, as would have occured had the *passengers* not intervened first.

Some of us need to read up on other parts of the Constitution.

Terrorists this, terrorists that, I know. Our own government will do a better job of filleting the Constitution than any small band of nutcases from the middle east could ever dream of. All they have to do these days is make sure we are scared of the terrorists, and we'll accept anything in the name of imagined safety. Our founding fathers knew it. Stated it. Damned if it doesn't become truer every day that goes by.

 

[plexreticle]

A .50cal machine gun wouldn't have done squat to stop 9/11, and it would never be fired on a school full of kids either.

Shooting down a crop duster with bio-toxin is the only thing posed so far that is even within the realm of plausible imagination, but just barely... by the time it was discovered that it was a toxin coming from the plane, the plane would be long gone. If that situation developed, it wouldn't be the job of civi police on the ground any more than it was their job to shoot down the plane headed for the Capitol building, as would have occured had the *passengers* not intervened first.

Some of us need to read up on other parts of the Constitution.

Terrorists this, terrorists that, I know. Our own government will do a better job of filleting the Constitution than any small band of nutcases from the middle east could ever dream of. All they have to do these days is make sure we are scared of the terrorists, and we'll accept anything in the name of imagined safety. Our founding fathers knew it. Stated it. Damned if it doesn't become truer every day that goes by.

Amen, brother.

 

[deaconkharma]

+2

amen again brother to the constitution fillet.

about the Mehico backstop, Plex it was toungue in cheek but if we're atalking about deterrence, the border is better than my neighborhood or yours.

 

[Wes Janson]

A number of comments come to mind on this issue.

Lots of people here seem to feel that there's no "need" for a police department to own an M2. As someone who actually owns a Ma Deuce, I naturally have to wonder if those same people feel the same way about my possession of the same weapon. Either there's a double standard (which must be properly validated), or else it naturally follows that they feel I shouldn't own one either.

On a personal level, I'm a firm believer in being the absolutely best-armed and equipped as possible. I can't really fault a police department for sharing the same sentiment as myself. If I could acquire an M113 with M2 for $2k/year, I'm pretty sure I'd go for it too (although maintenance and storage could be problematic). There may very well never be any need for it, but Burt's old mantra comes to mind: better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it.

From a purely tactical point of view, I also suspect that many of the objections raised here are based on erroneous perceptions of what the weapon can do. Yes, .50 BMG is highly prone to ricochet, and has a maximum flight distance of over 4 miles-but only when fired at a 30-degree angle into the air, without obstruction. And yes, .50 BMG is capable of penetrating approximately 2-4 feet through the ground, the better part of a foot through concrete, and a significantly long ways through wood/drywall construction. With that being said, and with the acknowledgement that a cartridge with that much muzzle energy is quite capable of defying expectations, there likely are valid scenarios that can be concieved where the necessity of a .50 BMG would outweigh the negligible safety concerns. Both the southernmost and northernmost parts of Richland County would appear to be fairly sparsely populated. While civilian ranges generally require a five mile runoff behind the line for safety reasons, in the event of a life-threatening situation where .223 rifle fire proves ineffective, it seems plausible that a legitimate decision might be made to employ a heavier caliber with only a mile or two runoff behind the target.

While different in several respects, it's worth noting that Knob Creek has operated for years with full-auto .50 BMG on a regular basis, and has houses only a mile or so downrange on the other side of the hill:

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=...854,-85.893345&spn=0.016874,0.027466&t=h&z=15


On the other hand, I'm still a firm believer that the people should not fear the government, but that the government should fear the people. In that regard, I'm completely fine with the Sheriff's acquisition of armored vehicles, so long as the balance of power may legally be maintained and the private citizen is allowed to possess even heavier ordnance. I just wish it were easier to handload for recoilless rifles.

 

[TAB]

Wes, if you were planing on using it as a offensive weapon... then you don't need it and should not have it.

A machine gun mounted on a APC is a offsensive weapon.

 

[JR47]

A .50cal machine gun wouldn't have done squat to stop 9/11, and it would never be fired on a school full of kids either.

Shooting down a crop duster with bio-toxin is the only thing posed so far that is even within the realm of plausible imagination, but just barely... by the time it was discovered that it was a toxin coming from the plane, the plane would be long gone. If that situation developed, it wouldn't be the job of civi police on the ground any more than it was their job to shoot down the plane headed for the Capitol building, as would have occured had the *passengers* not intervened first.

Some of us need to read up on other parts of the Constitution.

Terrorists this, terrorists that, I know. Our own government will do a better job of filleting the Constitution than any small band of nutcases from the middle east could ever dream of. All they have to do these days is make sure we are scared of the terrorists, and we'll accept anything in the name of imagined safety. Our founding fathers knew it. Stated it. Damned if it doesn't become truer every day that goes by.

Why is it that, to make this into a no-win scenario, every time a terrorist attack is talked about, it must come as a 100% surprise? As far a crop-dusters goes, they are available near a number of big cities. It's who's job to try to stop them? You'll play hell trying to get a military aircraft into the air after one. In that case, they not only will be done, but could have refilled, and set about their business multiple times.

So, you're saying that there are no terrorists, and that the talk from the news media, the government, and the various world bodies, all warning of increasing violence against the United States, is just so much hot air? Interesting.

A "small band of nutcases" with a few anti-aircraft missiles could wreak havoc under the flight paths of any major airport, miles away. That same band of nutcases could also set off a "dirty bomb" downtown in a large city, and kill tens of thousands. But, you don't think that will ever happen, right? It's be as ridiculous as high-jacking three planes, and trying to run them into buildings.

As for the government filleting the Constitution, who can actually deliver a documented decision that indicates a loss of Constitutional Freedoms under legislation passed since 9/11? It's been 7 years, and way long enough to have something to put out for proof. Where's the ACLU victories, or the Court rebuffs of the laws?

The biggest danger to the Constitution is us, the people. We want, we demand, and we complain, but decisions that we don't like are stealing our freedom. Wake up, there are 300 million of "us", and many have entirely different opinions than we do. Accusing all of them of allowing a mythical "government" to interpret something different than we do is the height of ignorance.

 

[Maelstrom]

So your saying it's ok to shoot people in Mexico accidentally or otherwise?

It's O.K. when there's an invading entity, which is exactly what we're dealing with.

Makes me wonder. If you were to fire a shot from the States into Mexico and kill someone, where would you be tried?

You couldn't be tried in the United States since no murder occurred here, right? On the flip side, you weren't in Mexico when the murder occurred so would they have any jurisdiction?

 

[fletcher]

I'd like to believe that, but the fact is at least 50% of CCWers claim they would walk away rather than getting involved. In situations where active shooters are present some people freeze, don't know the law, hesitate to shoot someone in the back, etc. In time as more citizens receive training and carry firearms I think it may become more of a reality.

I look at it this way - an armed citizen at the scene is better (depending on the individual(s) actions) than police 10 minutes away.

 

[shadowalker]

True, but only if they take action, if they run away with the rest of the people they do no good.

Similar to the poor guy who was beat with a hammer while 10 people sat and watched and did nothing.

 

[fletcher]

Then again, if our culture wasn't indoctrinated to stand down, "just give them what they want", and let the police handle everything, or perpetuate fear of being sued for shooting a legitimate criminal thug, we might not see so many incidents like that.

 

[KiltedClaymore]

You couldn't be tried in the United States since no murder occurred here, right? On the flip side, you weren't in Mexico when the murder occurred so would they have any jurisdiction?

under international law, yes. if (theoreticly)(< spelling?) you disputed that and fled/resisted, INTERPOL could be called in.

It's O.K. when there's an invading entity, which is exactly what we're dealing with.

and as a native Arizonan, i will say that i agree immigrants should come in legaly (just as our ancestors did). however, i dont regard people fleeing political corruption and extreame(spelling?) violence as "invaders". i call them refugees. i think they should be deported, then forced to come in legaly. that way they pay taxes like everyone else. if you don't live here, and have experiance with the people your talking about, dont talk trash about them. besides, this is the HIGH ROAD, there is no place for Minute-Man retoric here. You're looking for the low road, it's about 10 miles east and down the hill.

the border is better than my neighborhood or yours.

that IS my backyard!!!!

 

[mgkdrgn]

So your saying it's ok to shoot people in Mexico accidentally or otherwise?

Sure beats the hell out of clicking off a few hundred rounds in downtown Columbia, Sc.

 

[Poor East Texan]

It could make a no knock at the wrong address into something SPECIAL....

I reckon it IS much better to have and not need than to need and not have.

That said this couldn't have done anything on 9-11....

 

[Zoogster]

Lots of people here seem to feel that there's no "need" for a police department to own an M2. As someone who actually owns a Ma Deuce, I naturally have to wonder if those same people feel the same way about my possession of the same weapon. Either there's a double standard (which must be properly validated), or else it naturally follows that they feel I shouldn't own one either.

Our taxes do not pay for what you choose to purchase. You did not choose to be a public servant, and as a public servant to answer to the policies the public determines public servants should adhere to.

There is a double standard because you are supposed to be a free man, but these individuals are public employees. We are as the public the employers of these law enforcement agents, and determine what they do in the course of thier work and with what tools as our employees.

What they choose to do as individuals is a seperate issue. What they choose to do and the tools they have for use in the scope of thier employment is entirely our business, and whether we approve of it or not is very important. They work for us, doing a job voluntarily.
You on the other hand as a private individual are very different. You do not work for us as a public servant and we are not entitled to the same level of control over you.
You have not been contracted for use in providing any public services or security, or anything else that gives us as the public authority over the tools you possess, nor have you infringed on the rights of other free men with them.

 

[Officers'Wife]

That's one way past posse comitus.

 

[plexreticle]

Sure beats the hell out of clicking off a few hundred rounds in downtown Columbia, Sc.

I disagree.

This forum supports duality of so called Christian values often that are often spouted and the non Christian values of oppressing and dehumanizing anybody not from a first world country. I find it bizarre and counterproductive to maintaining our 2a rights.

Back to the topic at hand; If we live in a society where the local police feel like they need a heavy machine gun, either we have a serious problem with the police or in our own society.

Right now I'm inclined to say it's the police.

 

[mgkdrgn]

Lots of people here seem to feel that there's no "need" for a police department to own an M2. As someone who actually owns a Ma Deuce, I naturally have to wonder if those same people feel the same way about my possession of the same weapon. Either there's a double standard (which must be properly validated), or else it naturally follows that they feel I shouldn't own one either.

It's a difference of scope and purpose.

You and I would purchase one of John Brownings wonders for the sheer pleasure of it. Many water melons, pumpkins and junked cars/trucks tremble in fear at our approach.

Police departments do not purchase weapons for pleasure, they purchase them to use against people.

And the -really- bad thing is, that once they have such a tool, somebody is going to sooner or later figure they have a need to use it, justified or not.

Sure, you can come up with all kinds of "what if" scenarios (Zombies and bears man, Zombies and bears), but lets be realistic here ... there ain't no zombies out there! Ossama isn't 40' tall, and even if he was:

1) you couldn't get there in time at 30mph to do any good

2) once you did get there, Ma Duce would be just about as useful as tatical nuke ... way too much for the job at hand. Like swatting a fly on a nice granite counter top with a sledgehammer: likely miss the fly but bust the nice counter top all to bits.

What possible, realistic scenario could there be for the use of a small town sheriff department making use of a 50 cal belt fed machine gun, vehicle mounted or not? How many do the SC State Police have? How many does LAPD SWAT have? Richland County SC Sheriff department? Pluueeezze! Hell I'll wager the border patrol doesn't have any, and they could actually put them to good use.

 

[308sc]

I Live In Richland County

 

[Tarvis]

So your saying it's ok to shoot people in Mexico accidentally or otherwise?

The mexican police do worse.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Wes, if you were planing on using it as a offensive weapon... then you don't need it and should not have it.

A machine gun mounted on a APC is a offsensive weapon

Context?

 

[FourTeeFive]

I really wonder if Mr. Sheriff doesn't sit in the vehicle alone at night...

 

[dogmush]

I don't have a problem with the 113. It's an obsolete military vehicle. If you want one they are for sale to cilvilians. (albit not for $2k) I don't have a problem with the M2 beyond the issues I already have with the police being exempt from the NFA. If they can buy one, I should be able to buy one. Obviously the Sheriff is responsable for making and enforcing a ROE set that will prevent collateral damage. But if he does that, hey cool they might need a M2.

My only problem with this is I think it won't be an effective tactic and as such is a waste of money. The folks that an old 113 will scare/subdue you could do the same thing with an uparmoured Suburban and prevent the whole PR issue. The folks that you need an APC to arrest are right now googling "EFP". There's a reason 113's are in surplus.

It certinally looks good in parades though.

 

[deaconkharma]

Dogmush

I forget who said it, but some people that have been mentioned as the reason to get this machine (Terrorists) are the same one's who would love to coax the RCSD into using this machine and embarrassing them terribly. Good point about the EFP. A little time and preparation is all one needs and some stuff from Lowes and some stuff from a camping supply... I just really don't like the 50...
Like Plex said:
"Back to the topic at hand; If we live in a society where the local police feel like they need a heavy machine gun, either we have a serious problem with the police or in our own society. Right now I'm inclined to say it's the police. "